Franklin Regional Transit Authority

Transcription

Regional Transit Plan
Final Report - August 2015
Burke & Company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. 1
Recommended Phase Approach ............................................................................................................ 2
Benefits................................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost Estimation....................................................................................................................................... 4
Framework ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Task Summaries ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Project Overview .....................................................................................................................1-1
2. Project Purpose .......................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Core Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 FRTA Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2-2
3. FRTA Performance Analysis......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Service Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Ridership ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Service Operations ........................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.4 Service Productivity ....................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5 Financial Performance ................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.6 Service Frequency........................................................................................................................ 3-11
3.7 Ranking of Weekday Route Performance ................................................................................... 3-11
3.8 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 3-12
4. Determining Demand ..............................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Regional Job Creation Goals and Employment Needs .................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Transit Market Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4-5
5. Fare Rates and Collection Methods ..........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Collection Methods ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Fare Structure ................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3 National Best Practices .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 5-8
6. Environmental .........................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 GreenDOT Policy............................................................................................................................ 6-4
6.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 6-38
7. Recommendations...................................................................................................................7-1
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Strategies for Service Recommendation ....................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Recommendations Overview ........................................................................................................ 7-3
7.4 Cost Estimation.............................................................................................................................. 7-8
7.5 Recommended Service Guidelines ................................................................................................ 7-9
7.6 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................... 7-12
7.7 Recommendation Profiles ........................................................................................................... 7-16
8. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................8-1
Appendix A Market Demand Maps
Appendix B Recommendation Memo
Appendix C Public Outreach
Appendix D Public Hearing Comments
FIGURES
Figure 1: FRTA Service Area .......................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Proposed Route Network............................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Cost by Phase ................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: FRTA Monthly Ridership FY 2012 - FY 2014 ................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 5: FRTA Ridership by Route FY 2014 ............................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 6: FRTA Percent Ridership Change by Route FY 2012 - FY 2014 ..................................................... 3-3
Figure 7: FRTA Annual Revenue Hours FY 2012 - FY 2014 ......................................................................... 3-4
Figure 8: FRTA Annual Revenue Miles FY 2012 - FY 2014 .......................................................................... 3-5
Figure 9: FRTA Annual Operating Costs FY 2012 - FY 2014 ........................................................................ 3-5
Figure 10: FRTA Annual Passengers per Revenue Hour FY 2012 - FY 2014 ............................................... 3-6
Figure 11: FRTA Productivity by Route FY 2012 - FY 2014 ......................................................................... 3-7
Figure 12: FRTA Percent Productivity Change FY 2012 - FY 2014 .............................................................. 3-8
Figure 13: FRTA Annual Farebox Recovery FY 2012 - FY 2014................................................................... 3-9
Figure 14: FRTA Annual Subsidy per Passenger FY 2012 - FY 2014 ......................................................... 3-10
Figure 15: FRTA Weekday Subsidy per Passenger ................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 16: FRTA Regional Major Employers ............................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 17: Older Populations ..................................................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 18: Population Density .................................................................................................................... 4-8
Figure 19: Employment Density ............................................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 20: Transit Demand - Level of Service........................................................................................... 4-12
Figure 21: Median Household Income ..................................................................................................... 4-14
Figure 22: Zero Vehicle Household .......................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 23: Underserved Areas ................................................................................................................. 4-19
Figure 24: Area A: Bernadston ................................................................................................................. 4-20
Figure 25: Area B: Orange ........................................................................................................................ 4-21
Figure 26: Area C: Hatfield ....................................................................................................................... 4-22
Figure 27: Area D: Huntington ................................................................................................................. 4-23
Figure 28: Area E: Southampton .............................................................................................................. 4-24
Figure 29: Area F: Southwick ................................................................................................................... 4-25
Figure 30: SmartCard Technologies. Left WMATA Smartrip contact-less; Center TRI MET mobile ticketing;
Right Disney's Magic Band ......................................................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 31: Helsinki Mobility as a Service App ............................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 32: All Applicable Indicators Level of Attainment........................................................................... 6-3
Figure 33: All Applicable Indicators Attainment by Year ........................................................................... 6-3
Figure 34: Wood Pellet Boiler .................................................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 35: Air Indicators Level of Attainment ............................................................................................ 6-6
Figure 36: Air Indicators Attainment by Year............................................................................................. 6-6
Figure 37: Top left: Solar Wall, Bottom Left: Photovoltaic Array, Right: Geothermal Pumps ................. 6-10
Figure 38: Energy Air Indicators Level of Attainment .............................................................................. 6-11
Figure 39: Energy Indicators Attainment by Year .................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 40: Bio-retention garden at JWOTC .............................................................................................. 6-14
Figure 41: Land Indicators Level of Attainment ....................................................................................... 6-15
Figure 42: Land Indicators Attainment by Year ....................................................................................... 6-15
Figure 43: John W. Olver Transit Center .................................................................................................. 6-19
Figure 44: Materials Air Indicators Level of Attainment .......................................................................... 6-20
Figure 45: Material Indicators Attainment by Year ................................................................................. 6-20
Figure 46: FRTA bike rack ......................................................................................................................... 6-25
Figure 47: Planning Indicators Level of Attainment................................................................................. 6-25
Figure 48: Planning Indicators Attainment by Year ................................................................................. 6-26
Figure 49: Litter control program at JWOTC ............................................................................................ 6-30
Figure 50: Waste Indicators Level of Attainment .................................................................................... 6-31
Figure 51: Waste Indicators Attainment by Year ..................................................................................... 6-31
Figure 52: Water Indicators Level of Attainment .................................................................................... 6-34
Figure 53: Water Indicators Attainment by Year ..................................................................................... 6-35
Figure 54: Phase 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 7-6
Figure 55: Phase 2 & 3 ............................................................................................................................... 7-7
Figure 56: Cost by Phase ............................................................................................................................ 7-8
Figure 57: Fleet Requirements by Phase ................................................................................................... 7-9
TABLES
Table 1: Core Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2: FRTA Route Overview................................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3: Ranking of FRTA Routes ............................................................................................................. 3-11
Table 4: Frequency Thresholds ................................................................................................................ 4-11
Table 5: Transit Demand Data Variables and Sources ............................................................................. 4-16
Table 6: Transit Demand Variables and Formulas ................................................................................... 4-18
Table 7: Fares ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
Table 8: GreenDOT Goals, Objectives and Indicators ................................................................................ 6-4
Table 9: Air Goal Achievement................................................................................................................... 6-7
Table 10: Energy Goal Achievement ........................................................................................................ 6-12
Table 11: Land Goal Achievement ........................................................................................................... 6-16
Table 12: Material Goal Achievement ..................................................................................................... 6-21
Table 13: Planning, Policy & Design Goal Achievement .......................................................................... 6-26
Table 14: Waste Goal Achievement ......................................................................................................... 6-32
Table 15: Water Goal Achievement ......................................................................................................... 6-35
Table 16: Service Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 7-4
Table 17: Recommendations by Phase ...................................................................................................... 7-5
Table 18: FRTA Route Types..................................................................................................................... 7-10
Table 19: Service Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 7-11
Table 20: Minimum Service Spans ........................................................................................................... 7-11
Table 21: Minimum frequencies .............................................................................................................. 7-12
Table 22: Passenger per Hour .................................................................................................................. 7-14
Table 23: Cost per Hour Performance Standard Criteria ......................................................................... 7-14
Table 24: Phase Requirements .................................................................................................................. 8-1
Table 25: Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................. 8-2
Executive Summary
Burke & Company
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) provides fixed route bus service for 41 communities
throughout Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, and Worcester Counties. However fixed route service covers
only 12 communities (2 of which are not in the FRTA region) Geographically, FRTA covers the largest
service area of all regional transit authorities in the state of over 1,100 square miles and provides service
to both rural and small urban communities. Figure 1 depicts FRTA’s service area.
Figure 1: FRTA Fixed Route Service Area
FRTA operates a fleet of 43 transit vehicles, seventeen (17), of which are used to provide fixed-route
service to the region. Service is provided Monday through Friday between 5:00 AM and 6:30 PM; service
does not operate on weekends. FRTA carried 133,019 fixed route passengers during FY 2014.
The State Legislature, in response to requirements of the Transportation Finance Bill passed in 2013,
tasked each Regional Transit Authority (RTA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to prepare a
Regional Transit Plan. The purpose of this plan is to:
Executive Summary
1|Page
- examine FRTA’s existing service
- identify local markets with potential ridership
- provide recommendations on ways to improve service operations.
The consultant firm of AECOM was selected to prepare this plan with assistance provided by FRTA,
MassDOT, and local stakeholders.
Recommended Phase Approach
To meet the goals of the plan, recommendations are made to improve FRTA service over 3 phases, as
follows:
In Phase 1, Route 21 has been split into two routes (21, 25/62) and frequency has been improved.
Additional alignment changes are also made to combine Route 22 and Route 32 into one route. The
Route 23 will service Sugarloaf Apartments to connect with the PVTA instead of UMass. Schedules are
adjusted to improve transfers with the neighboring RTAs and weekday service has been extended into
the evening until 7:30 PM.
During Phase 2, Saturday service is implemented. Route 25/62 is split into two separate routes and
route frequency is improved. An express bus to Northampton via I-91 is implemented during peak hours.
In this phase FRTA should explore operating service on select holidays for which service does not
currently operate.
Finally in Phase 3, service is implemented on Sunday and the express route to Northampton is increased
to all day service.
Figure 2 depicts the FRTA service area with the proposed route network based on the recommendations
in all three phases.
Executive Summary
2|Page
Executive Summary
Figure 2: Proposed Route Network
3|Page
Benefits
Implementing the phased recommendations would provide benefits to FRTA and aid them in meeting
their goals and objectives to provide a cost-efficient system while maintaining a high level of service to
its riders. The phased service improvements would result in the following benefits:
1. Adjusting route schedules to improve connections with PVTA and MART would provide FRTA
passengers access to a larger transit network.
2. Improving route frequencies would provide a higher and more convenient level of service to
FRTA riders.
3. Implementing alignment changes would allow FRTA to provide service to areas that
demonstrate demand for transit service.
4. Expanding service to new areas, extending hours of operation during weekday evenings, and
implementing service on Saturday and Sunday would expand mobility in the region.
The following are FRTA objectives that have been met through the development and selection of the
phased recommendations:
Goal #1: Provide high-quality, customer-oriented service
Objective 1.a: Expand weekday hours
Objective 1.b: Implement weekend service
Objective 1.c: Increase frequency on highly productive corridors
Objective 1.d: Improve transit access for the public
Goal #2: Provide effective and safe services
Objective 2.a: Improve the productivity of routes
Objective 2.b: Increase service area commensurate with growing demand and need within the region
Objective 2.c: Design routes to improve on-time performance and minimize dwell time
Cost Estimation
With the implementation of each phased recommendation, additional operational and capital
improvements would increase FRTA’s annual cost. Figure 3 depicts the base operating costs for the
existing system along with the additional costs associated with the service improvements in each phase.
FRTA’s existing annual revenue operating hours are 14,488; these hours are expected to increase
throughout each phase. During Phase 1 annual revenue hours would increase by 6,229; annual revenue
hours would increase by 3,833 in Phase 2 and finally by 10,346 to an estimated 34,895 hours in Phase 3.
4|Page
FRTA Systemwide Cost by Phase
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
Phase increased cost
$1,500,000
Base cost
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Base cost
Existing
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
0
$682,000
$420,000
$1,133,000
$1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,882,000 $2,302,000
Figure 3: Cost by Phase
Capital Costs
Phase 1 service improvements have been designed using the constraint of FRTA’s existing fleet of 17
fixed route buses, 8 of which are used during peak service. Additional vehicles will be required for the
recommendations presented in Phases 2 and 3. To implement these phases in a timely manner, FRTA
must begin the planning process now as vehicle procurement can take up to two years before the buses
can be put into service. During peak service, Phase 2 will require 11 vehicles and Phase 3 will require 13
vehicles.
Framework
Recommendations were developed using a cumulative process that incorporated public outreach, a
diverse steering committee, operational input from FRTA, and analysis of existing transit service and the
local/regional market. Strategies to improve the system were developed based on FRTA’s goals and
objectives and the following guidelines:
1. Simplify – Routes should be designed along main corridors with minimal schedule deviations. For
routes that are not linear, service should be provided in both directions.
2. Service should match demand – The denser (both in terms of employment and population) areas
should have a higher level of service with either higher frequency routes or multiple lower
frequency routes. Major corridors often warrant higher frequencies.
3. Standardized frequency – Frequencies should be standardized using clock-face schedules to create
30, 60 and 120 minute headways.
5|Page
4. Priority to existing ridership – Service should be increased in areas that warrant it over servicing
new areas if limited resources are available.
5. Efficiency – Where possible routes should be designed to be the most efficient. Decisions to deviate
off the main corridor and add time to the route are only warranted where key destinations like
shopping centers are too far off the main road, there are a lack of pedestrian facilities or the benefit
(due to demand) of servicing the deviation outweighs the additional time incurred to others on the
route.
6. Consistency – Except where warranted by peak only routes or increased peak hour service, service
should have consistent headways throughout the day using clock-face schedules.
7. Regional network – Regional connections should be improved to provide access outside of the FRTA
service area through timed transfers with other systems such as PVTA or MART, to areas identified
as common destinations through the market analysis and public outreach process.
Task Summaries
The Transportation Finance Bill assigned the following nine tasks to be evaluated by each RTA:
Task 1. Comprehensive Assessment of Transit Services
FRTA has created a mission statement, goal, and objectives to help guide future service improvements.
FRTA’s mission statement and objectives, as outlined below, have been considered in the development
of this Regional Transit Plan.
Goal #3: Promote the transit service
Task 2. Examination of Ridership Trends
Ridership data collected from FY 2012, 2013, and 2014 was used to analyze yearly transit ridership
trends. In FY 2014, FRTA reported 133,019 passengers. Recently, use of FRTA’s service has declined;
between FY 2012 and FY 2013 ridership decreased by roughly 1.6% and by 8.8% between FY 2013 and FY
2014. Part of this decrease may be attributed to a reduction of service after the town of Athol joined a
neighboring RTA. Ridership is highest during the fall and spring due to student populations. Ridership
increased between FY 2012 and FY 2014 on Routes 21 (8.2%) and 31 (4.3%).
Task 3. Performance Analysis of Service
Each route in the FRTA service area was evaluated based on several factors including ridership,
passengers per revenue hours, and subsidy per passenger. The top three performing routes during the
weekday include Routes 22 (Montague – Greenfield), 31 (Northampton – Greenfield), and 21
(Greenfield Community). These routes are top priorities for service investment and may benefit from
increased service frequencies or service spans. Routes performing below average, such as Route 23
6|Page
(Amherst – Greenfield) may require additional analysis to determine the cause of the problem or may be
considered for discontinuation of service.
Task 4. Develop and Evaluate Service Alternatives
Service alternatives for the entire FRTA system were evaluated through a process that incorporated
public outreach, a diverse steering committee, operational input from FRTA, and analyses of the existing
transit service and local market. Alternatives were guided by the five goals identified by FRTA to improve
service. Preliminary alternatives were presented to FRTA at a workshop where they were further
refined.
Task 5. Recommendations to Better Align Service
Recommendations for FRTA have been presented through a three phase approach. Phases establish the
immediacy and prioritization of needs and are based on an incremental approach and by the availability
of resources. Recommendations in Phase 1 can be implemented immediately while recommendations in
Phase 2 and 3 can only be implemented as resources become available.
Phase 1 recommendations include standardizing frequencies, adjusting alignments, adjusting schedules
to improve transfers, and implementing evening service. During Phase 2, Saturday service and new
routes have been implemented. Lastly, in Phase 3, service has been implemented on Sunday.
Task 6. Commonwealth’s Environmental Policies
GreenDOT’s implementation plan, developed in 2012, identifies themes, goals and indicators to guide
transportation development to a more sustainable future. An evaluation of FRTA’s services was
conducted to determine their ongoing compliance with the policy. While there are over 300 short,
medium, and long-term indicators, only 78% are applicable to FRTA. Of these applicable indicators, FRTA
is already meeting 26% and working towards meeting additional medium-term indicators by 2015 and
long-term indicators by 2020.
Task 7. Fare Rates and Collection Methods
In 2009, FRTA installed GFI Genfare Electronic Validating Fareboxes on all fixed route vehicles. These
fareboxes accept coins and bills and can issue change cards, essentially a stored value card, which can be
used towards payment for future fares. Stored value cards can be purchased on the buses or from the
JWO Transit Center. Adult fares range from $1.00 to $3.00 depending on the route while elderly
persons, Medicare card holders, and disabled passengers receive a half price fare. Moving forward, FRTA
should explore new technology, such as mobile payments or bPay/Magic Band/Uband, to replace
outdated fare collection methods.
Task 8. Region’s Job Creation Goals and Employment Needs
FRTA’s economy is shifting from that historically has been agricultural and manufacturing-based to an
economy that is now strongly supported by the service industry. The top four industries in the region are
healthcare (18.6%), manufacturing (18.4%), retail trade (14.9%) and food service (14.9%). While
7|Page
manufacturing is the second largest sector of the economy, it is quickly declining; 1,000 manufacturing
jobs have been lost since 2000. Understanding the region’s employment sector will allow FRTA to
provide a better level of service to workers in the region.
Task 9. Determination of Effectiveness of FRTA Service to Meet the Needs of the Region’s
Workforce
The following indicators were used to identify demand levels across the region: population density,
employment density, elderly populations, zero vehicle households, median household income, disabled
households, schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, priority development areas, park and ride lots,
and commuter rail. The analysis revealed that FRTA provides fixed-route service to all but six areas with
high transit demand. These six underserved areas include Bernardston, Orange, Hatfield, Huntington,
Southampton, and Southwick.
There are 48 employers with more than 100 employees in the FRTA region; 77% of these employers are
currently served by FRTA routes. Extending service to underserved employment centers would help
improve mobility in the region.
8|Page
Page intentionally left blank Chapter 1
Project Overview
Burke & Company
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Franklin Regional Transit Authority has prepared this Draft Regional Transit Plan in accordance with
the Transportation Finance Bill.
The State Legislature has instructed all Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to undertake the preparation of a Regional Transit Plan as a requirement of the
Transportation Finance Bill passed in 2013. These Regional Transit Plans present an opportunity to
improve local bus service operations, identify new markets of service opportunity, and meet the
identified needs for public transit services in each respective RTA service area. Section 63 of the Bill
notes nine discrete tasks that each Regional Transit Plan must address. These tasks are as follows:
(1) Comprehensive assessment of transit services
(2) Thorough examination of the ridership trends for each line and service provided by the
regional transit authority
(3) Performance analysis of existing services
(4) Development and evaluation of alternative service scenarios
(5) Development of a recommendation to better align service with local and regional
demand
(6) Commonwealth’s environmental policies
(7) Fare rates and collection methods
(8) Region’s job creation goals and employment needs
(9) Determination of whether the regional transit authority’s service is deployed in the most
effective way possible to accommodate the transit needs of the region’s workforce.
Each RTA is also required to hold public hearings on the draft relating to the development of its Regional
Transit Plan in order to inform the public and gather their input.
1-1 | P a g e
Chapter 2
Project Purpose
Burke & Company
2. PROJECT PURPOSE
The Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) was established in 1978 under the provisions of Chapter
161B. FRTA currently serves 41 communities throughout Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, and Worcester
Counties. Although it is not the biggest Massachusetts transit authority in terms of ridership, FRTA
covers the largest service area (over 1,100 square miles) and the most rural geographical area in the
State. FRTA currently has a fleet of 13 vehicles used for their fixed route service – seven buses and six
mini-buses – to provide fixed-route and paratransit service to member communities.
The Authority is given general responsibilities to develop, finance, and contract for the operation of
transportation facilities and services within the service area. The day-to-day affairs of the Authority are
managed by the Administrator, who is appointed by the Advisory Board. According to the statute,
regional transit authorities cannot operate service directly, but instead must contract with private
operators for the provision of service. FRTA contracts with Franklin Transit Management, Inc. for their
fixed-route and some demand response service. Due to the rural nature of its service area, FRTA also
contracts with local Councils on Aging to provide additional demand response transportation.
Since FRTA is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is funded by Federal,
Local, and State governments in addition to farebox and advertising revenues. For Fixed Route service,
local assessments are based on the number of vehicle revenue hours of service in each town and for
paratransit service local assesments are based on the number of one way trips in each town. Federal
and state funds must be used for capital projects such as equipment, preventative maintenance of
vehicles, facilities and equipment, ADA services, facility improvements, and the purchase of vehicles.
Operating expenses, such as salaries, benefits, advertising and marketing expenses and other cash
needs, are funded by grants, federal, state and local monies, and farebox revenue.
In August 2006, FRTA assumed the responsibility of providing transportation services for the towns of
Greenfield and Montague. Transportation in those two towns was previously operated by the
Greenfield Montague Transportation Area (GMTA) under MGL Chapter 161A and included fixed-route
and demand response service. FRTA had four original fixed-routes prior to the consolidation of services.
Fixed-route service increased to nine routes with expansion into Greenfield, Montague, and
Amherst. This consolidation closed previous gaps in demand response service, and ADA service was
implemented for consumers in Greenfield and Montague.
2.1 Core Goals and Objectives
In April 2013, representatives from several RTAs were asked what they wanted their Regional Transit
Plans to accomplish. Ideas were developed and ranked by these representatives to create a core list of
goals and objectives for each RTA’s Regional Transit Plan. The most highly-rated concepts – and those to
which each of the Regional Transit Plans will respond – are as follows:
2-1 | P a g e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Better align service with needs
Improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of system
Improve transit access for the public
Increase ridership levels
Increase transit frequency and service options
Increase revenue
Improve transit access for transit-dependent populations
Support economic development
While goals outline priorities, objectives are measurable actions that are necessary to realize the goals.
The above list can be broken down as follows:
Table 1: Core Goals and Objectives
Goals
• Increase ridership levels
• Better align service with needs
• Support economic development
• Increase revenue
Objectives
• Increase transit frequency and service options
• Improve transit access for the public
• Improve transit access for transit-dependent populations
• Improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of system
It should be noted that goals and objectives that were ranked favorably by individual RTAs but did not
receive an overall high ranking will still be considered in the Regional Transit Plan for those authorities.
Section 2.2 explains the goals and objectives that are specific to FRTA.
2.2 FRTA Goals and Objectives
In addition to responding to the core goals and objectives outlined in Section 2.1, the Regional Transit
Plan for FRTA is also based on concerns related to their system. The goals and objectives echo the
feedback received from a series of “Community Conversations on Transit” held with the public at four
separate locations. The public outreach has helped form these goals and objectives.
Mission Statement:
FRTA has established a rural transit system that will improve the quality of life and enhance the
economic health of the region and its residents through cost effective, accessible, safe, dependable, and
courteous transportation services. The RTA is committed to finding ways to assist those living in low
income and low population areas so that they will have access to the same modes of transit needed to
nurture independence in their later years and allow less dependency on owning a vehicle. By educating
our consumers on the benefits of public transit, FRTA hopes to reduce the carbon footprint in our
service area and surrounding communities.
2-2 | P a g e
Goal:
•
The primary goal of FRTA is to implement its vision for transportation services in the region,
as explained in the mission statement above. To meet this goal, FRTA will use the following
objectives.
Objectives:
1. Expand fixed route service hours during the week and implement Saturday and/or Sunday
fixed route service.
2. Create a travel training program to perform in-person assessments for our disabled
population and to help transition paratransit riders onto the fixed-route system.
3. Increase fixed-route frequencies to average 30 minute headways on Routes 21 and 22, 60
minute headways on Routes 31 and 32, and 120 minute headways on Routes 23 and 41.
2-3 | P a g e
Chapter 3
Perfromance Analysis
Burke & Company
3. FRTA PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
3.1 Service Overview
The Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) has the largest service area of the 15 RTAs in
Massachusetts with 41 communities spanning nearly 1,100 square miles. Ten of the communities
receive fixed route service in addition to two non-member communities. FRTA is responsible for fixedroute service within its service area as well as the coordination of paratransit services. All routes operate
to and from Greenfield serving the John W. Olver Transit Center from Monday through Friday between
5:00am and 6:30pm, with no service provided on Saturday or Sunday. Table 2 provides a brief overview
of the services provided by FRTA.
Route
Service Type
21
22
23
31
32
41
Corp
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Fixed-route
Description
Greenfield Community
Montague – Greenfield
Amherst – Greenfield
Northampton – Greenfield
Orange – Greenfield
Charlemont – Greenfield
Corporate Center Shuttle
Days
Operated
Weekdays
Weekdays
Weekdays
Weekdays
Weekdays
Weekdays
Weekdays
Service Span
6:15am - 6:00pm
6:15am - 6:30pm
6:45am - 4:10pm
5:15am - 6:15pm
5:00am - 6:22pm
6:45am - 5:35pm
8:00am - 3:25pm
Service
Frequency
5 trips/day
8 trips/day
2 trips/day
6 trips/day
7 trips/day
4 trips/day
5 trips/day
Table 2: FRTA Route Overview
3.2 Ridership
3.21 System Ridership
FRTA’s annual ridership in FY 2012 was 137,383 and has been on a steady decline with FY 2014 ridership
at 123,303 passengers. Ridership dropped about 1.6 percent between FY 2012 and FY 2013 and 8.8
percent between FY 2013 and FY 2014. One of the reasons for this ridership decline is the reduction of
service to Athol after the town joined the MART service area. FRTA averages approximately 11,000
passengers each month. Average monthly ridership has remained largely stable over the last three fiscal
years with diminished ridership relative to previous years seen in January through March of 2014.
Ridership drops slightly during the winter and summer months, due to the student populations, and is
strongest in the spring and fall. Figure 4 shows FRTA ridership per month from FY 2012 to FY 2014.
3-1 | P a g e
Monthly Ridership
14,000
Monthly Ridership
12,000
10,000
8,000
FY 12
6,000
FY 13
4,000
FY 14
2,000
0
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Month
Figure 4: FRTA Monthly Ridership FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.22 Weekday Ridership
Average daily weekday system ridership for FY 2014 was 471 passengers. Average ridership per route
among FRTA’s six routes is 81 passengers per route. Routes 31 and 21 exhibit the highest ridership in the
system with 126 and 118 daily passengers respectively. These figures are shown in Figure 5.
FRTA recently introduced a Corporate Center Shuttle route; however, complete data was not yet
available for this route and as such it is not included in this analysis.
Ridership by Route (FY 2014)
Average Weekday Ridership
140
System average:
81 passengers/route
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
31
21
22
32
41
23
Route
Figure 5: FRTA Ridership by Route FY 2014
3-2 | P a g e
Figure 6 shows the percent change in daily average ridership from FY 2012 to FY 2014 for individual
routes. Of the six routes, two Routes (Routes 21 and 31) experienced growth in ridership. Routes 23 and
32 had the largest decreases in ridership, losing 47 and 36 percent of their riders respectively. Overall,
weekday ridership decreased by about 11 percent. Fluctuations in ridership do not correlate with
changes in service revenue hours as service hours remained unchanged between fiscal years 2012 and
2014, as discussed in Section 3.3 below. It is speculated that the drop in ridership on the 41 is because
less students are traveling to the Academy of Charlemont. The drop in ridership on Route 32 is due to
the reduction in service when Athol left FRTA to join MART. Route 23 has such low ridership that a
minor change in ridership is magnified greatly in a percent change.
Percent Ridership Change FY 2012 - FY 2014
20%
Percent Change
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
21
31
22
41
32
23
Route
Figure 6: FRTA Percent Ridership Change by Route FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.23 Weekend Ridership
FRTA does not currently operate any weekend services.
3-3 | P a g e
3.3 Service Operations
3.31 Revenue Hours
FRTA runs approximately 14,200 revenue hours each year in regular fixed-route service with a monthly
average of approximately 1,180 hours. No significant changes have taken place in the overall amount of
annual fixed-route revenue hours operated by FRTA between FY 2012 and FY 2014. Figure 7 shows
annual revenue hours from FY 2012 to FY 2014.
Annual Revenue Hours
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
Fiscal Year
Figure 7: FRTA Annual Revenue Hours FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.32 Revenue Miles
FRTA operated approximately 335,000 regular fixed-route revenue miles annually in both FY 2012 and
FY 2013, but decreased in FY 2014 to approximately 325,000 miles, averaging approximately 27,000
revenue miles per month. This is due to a 14.3 percent reduction in Route 32 mileage in FY 2014 from a
revised routing now terminating at the Hannaford supermarket on the Orange/Athol town line rather
than the Athol Memorial Hospital at Main Street and Mechanic Street in Athol following the departure
of the Town of Athol from FRTA. This has also extended operator layover at the route’s eastern terminus
to 26 minutes. This change in route structure creates the potential for the introduction of greater
service efficiencies in the service planning process through, for example, route restructuring or
interlining to improve service efficiency.
Figure 8 shows annual revenue miles for FY 2012 to FY 2014.
3-4 | P a g e
Annual Revenue Miles
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
Fiscal Year
Figure 8: FRTA Annual Revenue Miles FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.33 Operating Costs
FRTA operations cost was $1.28 million annually in FY 2013, with a monthly average of about $106,000.
FRTA had an hourly operating cost of $109.50 per revenue hour in FY 2013. FRTA’s operating costs show
an increase between FY 2012 and FY 2014 of 15 percent to $1.3 million, despite no significant increases
in service taking place during that period. Figure 9 shows FRTA’s annual operating costs between FY
2012 and FY 2014.
Annual Operating Costs
System Operating Costs
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
Fiscal Year
Figure 9: FRTA Annual Operating Costs FY 2012 - FY 2014
3-5 | P a g e
3.4 Service Productivity
3.41 System Productivity
Productivity measures the ridership generated per unit of service (revenue hours or revenue miles) and
provides an understanding of the effectiveness of a route or transit network.
While revenue hours have stayed largely constant since FY2012, ridership has decreased, reducing
FRTA’s system productivity from 9.7 passengers per revenue hour in FY 2012 to 8.5 passengers per
revenue hour in FY 2014, as shown in Figure 10.
Annual Productivity
Passengers per Revenue Hour
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
Fiscal Year
Figure 10: FRTA Annual Passengers per Revenue Hour FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.42 Weekday Productivity
FRTA routes exhibit a wide range of performance, as shown in Figure 11. The routes with the highest
ridership in the FRTA system are also the routes with the greatest productivity. Route 22 is the best
performing route in the system with approximately 13 passengers per revenue hour, while Routes 31
and 21 are both above ten passengers per revenue hour. Route 32, while previously performing among
FRTA’s better routes, has experienced a significant decrease in productivity due to its April 2013
truncation at the Orange/Athol town line, falling from 10 passengers per revenue hour to 6 between FY
2012 and FY 2014. Routes 41 and 23 are the least productive at 4.4 and 2.7 passengers per revenue hour
respectively.
3-6 | P a g e
Productivity by Route
14
System average:
8.5 passengers/revenue hour
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
22
31
21
32
41
23
Route
Average
Figure 11: FRTA Productivity by Route FY 2012 - FY 2014
Figure 12 shows the percent change in productivity from FY 2012 to FY 2014 to date for all individual
routes. Only Routes 21 and 31 experienced growth in ridership, while all other routes experienced
losses. In particular, Routes 32 and 23 experienced losses in service productivity of 37 and 47 percent
respectively. Route 32’s decrease can likely be again attributed to the departure of Athol from FRTA and
the resulting loss of its ridership, while the percent decrease on Route 23 can be attributed, in part, to
its overall low ridership – with only eleven average daily passengers, the loss of a few passengers will
magnify the losses in terms of a percentage.
3-7 | P a g e
Percent Productivity Change FY 2012 - FY 2014
10%
Percent Change
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
21
31
22
41
32
23
Route
Figure 12: FRTA Percent Productivity Change FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.5 Financial Performance
3.51 Farebox Recovery Ratio
The farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue to operating costs. Higher ratios indicate higher
cost-effectiveness and measure the portion of operating costs covered by passenger fares. The higher
the farebox ratio, the lower the subsidy a route needs to operate, leaving more funding available to
operate more service.
FRTA’s rural service offers few opportunities to maintain a competitive farebox recovery ratio while
keeping fares affordable to customers. Fares are free for veterans and individuals registered with the
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind. Other discounts include children under five riding for free
(with a fare paying adult), and half fare prices for ADA and Statewide Access pass holders, and seniors
over 60. As such farebox recovery ratios fell below five percent for the past three fiscal years, as shown
in Figure 13. However, performance has diminished in that time from 10.7 percent in FY 2012 to 7.6
percent in FY2014 through March 31st. While operating costs have increased slightly since FY 2012, the
decrease in financial efficiency is most strongly driven by decreases in passenger revenue.
While farebox recovery ratios for rural transit systems are typically low – according to 2011 figures from
the Rural National Transit Database 1, eight percent of total operating expenses are covered through fare
1
http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/77060.pdf
3-8 | P a g e
revenue for all rural transit systems 2, while 14 percent of total operating expenses for medium-large
rural systems such as FRTA are covered by fare revenue – FRTA’s system wide farebox recovery ratio is
still very low in comparison. However, the average farebox recovery ratio for other agencies in FTA
Region I, encompassing the entirety of New England, is only five percent.
Operating Revenue / Operating Costs
Annual Farebox Recovery
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014 (through 3/31)
Figure 13: FRTA Annual Farebox Recovery FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.52 Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per passenger measures how much it costs to operate transit service on a “per passenger” basis.
It is calculated by subtracting passenger revenue from operating cost and dividing by the total number
of passengers. Lower passenger subsidy values indicate that a greater portion of operating costs are
recovered through passenger fares, and are more desirable for financial sustainability.
Subsidy per passenger has increased over the past three fiscal years. The average subsidy per passenger
was $7.29 in FY 2012, $8.57 in FY 2013, and $9.68 in FY 2014.
2
Rural areas are defined by the NTD as areas receiving Section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program
funding.
3-9 | P a g e
Annual Subsidy per Passenger
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
$0.00
Subsidy per Passenger
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
Figure 14: FRTA Annual Subsidy per Passenger FY 2012 - FY 2014
3.53 Weekday Subsidy per Passenger
Route 22 had the lowest weekday subsidy per passenger at $6.31. Route 23 to Amherst had the highest
subsidy at $31.86 per passenger. Figure 15 shows average subsidy per passenger by route on weekdays.
Weekday Subsidy per Passenger (FY 2014)
22
31
21
32
41
23
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
Avg. $14.26
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
Figure 15: FRTA Weekday Subsidy per Passenger
3-10 | P a g e
3.6 Service Frequency
Frequency refers to how often a bus serves a particular route. Service frequencies affect how passengers
use the system and the flexibility they can have when making travel plans.
FRTA routes operate infrequently, ranging from two to seven trips on each route per direction per day.
Routes 22 and 32 run the most frequently with seven trips per direction per day, with frequencies of
approximately 120 minutes between trips. Route 23 runs least frequently with two trips per direction
per day, with one round trip during the morning peak period and one round trip in the evening peak
period.
Service frequencies correspond somewhat well with passenger ridership within the FRTA system, with
the most frequent routes carrying more passengers and the least frequent routes carrying considerably
fewer passengers.
3.7 Ranking of Weekday Route Performance
In order to evaluate investment priorities, the routes were given a score based on how their
performance compared with system averages. Routes were scored based on ridership, passengers per
revenue hour, and subsidy per passenger. For each route, each performance indicator was evaluated as
a percentage of the system average. For example, if the system average was 100 passengers and a given
route has 200 passengers, it would score 200% for that category. The composite score was calculated by
taking the averages of the percentages for each category. The routes were then divided into four tiers
based on their composite score: Highest performers (150% or greater), above average performers
(149%-100%), below average performers (99%-50%), poor performers (49% or lower).
Table 3: Ranking of FRTA Routes
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Route
22
31
21
32
41
23
Route Description
Northampton – Greenfield
Charlemont – Greenfield
Score
144%
141%
130%
91%
48%
26%
Investment strategies for routes will vary based on their performance tier. The six routes with the
highest performances are top priorities for service investment and may benefit from increased service
frequencies or service spans. The other routes that perform above average are candidates for further
service investment as resources become available.
For routes that perform below average require further analysis to determine the cause of low
performance. A more in depth analysis could look at inefficiencies in route alignments as well as service
3-11 | P a g e
frequencies and spans. Routes with exceptionally low performance may be candidates for
discontinuation of service.
3.8 Key Findings
•
•
•
•
•
Overall, ridership decreased between FY 2012 and FY 2014 as a result of Athol leaving the FRTA
service area.
Because of this reduction in ridership, service performance decreased between FY 2012 and FY
2014.
Ridership loss is not an isolated event – two-thirds of routes on weekdays lost riders between FY
2012 and FY 2014.
Routes 21, 22, 31, and 32 exhibit above-average ridership, while Routes 23 and 41 carry
considerably fewer than average passengers.
Routes with higher frequencies have higher productivities.
3-12 | P a g e
Determining Demand
Burke & Company
4. DETERMINING DEMAND
In order to evaluate a transit system and identify possible ways to strengthen it, it is important to
understand the surrounding market, how this market is evolving, and who the riders of the system are.
Demographics, land use, and socioeconomics – all of which impact ridership – are constantly changing.
To align service to meet the needs of these potential riders, it is important to understand the level of
transit demand that they represent.
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first section examines regional job creation goals and
employment needs to demonstrate the economic context of the region and to identify potential
ridership growth areas. The second section seeks to determine how the current service offered by the
Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) aligns with its regional transit demand.
4.1 Regional Job Creation Goals and Employment Needs
This section will examine economic growth in the region to determine job creation goals and
employment needs as well as the role transit plays in accommodating these needs. To determine the
region’s job creation goals and employment needs, the Strategic Plan of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Executive Office for Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) was reviewed to
examine the overarching goals for the state. The Greater Franklin County 2013 Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and The Pioneer Valley Plan for Progress were also reviewed to
determine economic context and how the region is expected to grow. Major regional
employers/industries were also identified. This information was supplemented by site visits and
interviews with FRTA and Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) planning staff.
4.11 EOHED Strategic Plan
The EOHED plays a crucial role in supporting the growth of the economy, vibrant communities, and
competition for consumers and businesses. The office, led by the Secretary of Housing and Economic
Development, is focused on steering Massachusetts towards smart growth, a development approach
that recognizes the interactions between land use, energy, and transportation. To achieve this, the
EOHED has outlined a three-year strategic plan that focuses on the following four goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Accelerated job creation;
Stabilized housing;
Enhanced consumer awareness; and
Improved regulatory solutions.
As the economy transitions from health care, higher education, technology, financial services, and
tourism to one that includes life sciences, clean energy, and the creative economy, more jobs will be
added. Accelerating job creation in conjunction with compact land use development patterns that
4-1 | P a g e
promote sustainability and increase the number of affordable housing units will change residential
patterns and transportation needs. To serve the needs of the new emerging clusters of employment and
housing, the transportation system as a whole must change and adapt. The new environments, which
will be comprised of small and mid-sized businesses, must be served by public transit in order to meet
the demands of the new workforce. While the public transit system must adapt to the changing
economy, it should be noted that no two regions of the state are the same. As such, job creation goals
and employment needs – and thus transportation needs – will differ.
4.12 Franklin County Economic Development
FRTA’s service region is diverse, serving both rural and urban areas across four counties (Franklin,
Hampshire, Worcester, and Hampden). There are 41 3 communities in the region, which range from rural
communities of 650 residents to cities with populations of 17,000. The largest population centers
are the cities of Greenfield, Montague, and Southwick, which together account for 34% of the
population. Greenfield has slightly fewer than 17,000 residents; Southwick has 9,500; and Montague has
slightly fewer than 8,500. Twenty-three of the communities are within the FRCOG region, 16 fall under
the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) and two are within the Montachusett Regional Planning
Commission (MRPC). FRTA provides fixed-route service to 12 communities including Greenfield and
Montague two of the three largest communities. Two of these 12 communities – Amherst and
Northampton – are not FRTA member communities while the other 10 are. For communities that do
not receive fixed-route service, including Southwick the second most populous FRTA community, FRTA
contracts with the Council on Aging to provide service for the elderly.
The region as a whole has a population of 103,845 and has seen marginal increases in
population. Franklin County communities have declined in population by 0.2% over the last ten years,
while member communities in Hampshire and Hampden counties experienced a 4% growth during this
time period. Collectively, the region has grown 1.05%. Population projections show that by 2035
Franklin County communities will increase in population by approximately 5,400. The smaller rural
communities have experienced the largest percentage population growth, but a small change in
population is magnified much more when the population is low to begin. Income indicators show that
the region’s median household and family income values are slightly lower than the state averages.
Franklin’s economy has constantly been evolving. Historically an agricultural based economy, it shifted
to manufacturing and is now transitioning to a service based economy. The largest industry in Franklin
County is healthcare (18.6%) followed by manufacturing (18.4%), retail trade (14.9%), and food service
(9.4%). Education is closely behind with 7.3%, primarily because of the numerous institutes of higher
education in the communities of Amherst and Northampton. While manufacturing is the largest sector
of the economy, it is the fastest declining industry in the region. Since 2000 there has been a loss of
almost 1,000 manufacturing jobs. As manufacturing has declined, service-based industries have
3
This includes Hatfield who was just approved to join the FRTA
4-2 | P a g e
increased, though 95% of these establishments have 50 or fewer employees. Many of Hampshire and
Hampden County FRTA communities are small, and much of the employment data by sector has been
suppressed for confidentiality. 4 Key observations for these areas include: there is a large wholesale
trade sector in Hatfield; a strong construction industry exists; the largest of these communities,
Southwick, has 274 establishments that employee 2,511 workers; and there are very few healthcare,
education, information, finance, and manufacturing jobs.
Commuting patterns for Franklin County communities show that for the five largest communities 78.2%
live and work in Franklin County while 9.7% work in Franklin County but live in Hampshire County.
Overall, 21.8% of the workforce does not live in Franklin County, and 38% of the people who live in
Franklin County work elsewhere. The largest percentage of residents who work outside Franklin County,
20%, work in Hampshire County, primarily in the communities of Amherst, Hadley, Hatfield, and
Northampton. Amherst is the largest net importer of Franklin County residents to their workforce, as
3,631 of the 23,501 employees in Amherst are residents of Franklin County. Employment levels in
Amherst are high due to the three colleges that collectively employ more than 8,000. Northampton,
Athol, and Hadley are the next three largest communities that employee Franklin County residents
There are 48 employers that have more than 100 employees in FRTA communities (Figure 16). Of those
employers, 77% are serviced by fixed-route transit, and the largest – Yankee Candle – is serviced by
FRTA. The largest percentage, 31%, of these top employers are located in Greenfield, followed by 14.5%
in Deerfield and 12.5% in Montague. Outside of the FRTA region major employers of FRTA community
residents in Amherst and Northampton include The University of Massachusetts, Amherst College,
Hampshire College, Smith College, Cooley Dickinson Hospital and the Veterans Medical Center in
addition to hundreds of small employers.
Priority development areas (PDAs) are regions that a community has designated as places to focus
economic growth. These areas typically have existing infrastructure and underlining zoning that favors
development and are an indicator of future growth in the community. PVPC identifies commercially
zoned land and land use areas located in town centers as part of their Valley Vision Plan. All of the PVPC
communities have identified PDA areas. FRCOG has designated all areas in town centers as PDAs.
4
To use the entire Hampshire and Hampden counties data to depict these communities would provide an
inaccurate picture due to the large urban areas outside the FRTA service areas. These large communities are
members of the PVTA service area.
4-3 | P a g e
Figure 16: FRTA Regional Major Employers
4-4 | P a g e
4.2 Transit Market Analysis
Certain groups, such as older adults, the young, low income populations, and those without access to a
vehicle, are more likely to use transit, and quite often their trips are for work purposes. By analyzing
and examining such factors as age, population density, employment density, income levels, and vehicle
availability, transit-dependent populations within the region were identified (Section 4.21). This
information was then combined with additional attributes such as land use and amenities to determine
an overall market and demand for transit in the region (Section 4.22). To determine if service was
currently deployed in the most effective way to accommodate the transit needs of the region’s
workforce, each route was mapped and overlaid on maps displaying employment and socio-economic
data (Section 4.23).
4.21 Transit Dependent Populations
Transit-dependent populations are those exhibiting socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that
make them more likely to use public transit than others, such as level of income, access to a vehicle, and
age. Transit systems are often designed with a focus on serving such populations. In addition,
population and employment densities can also provide an indication to the feasibility of providing
service Industry standards indicate that at least 2,000 households are needed per square mile to support
a fixed-route transit system. It is important to match the level of demand with the level of service as it is
expensive to run a transit system.
Older Populations
According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), individuals aged 65 and above
represent the second largest transit user group 5. This group’s high level of transit ridership, however, is
disproportional to the relatively small percentage of the population that the group represents. Senior
population typically correlates with areas of low income levels and vehicle ownership. These individuals
are often on fixed incomes, which reduces their desire to own a vehicle. Additionally, health issues such
as poor eyesight can deter them from driving. There appears to be no real pattern to where this age
group tends to live in the FRTA service area (Figure 17). Thus, it can be challenging to institute
transportation services that meet their needs. Within the FRTA service area, 15.6% of the population is
made up of individuals over the age of 65 and MassDOT projections show that by 2035 this cohort will
increase by 77% by 2035 Results from a Community Action survey conducted by FRCOG in 2014 and
distributed to Franklin, Hampshire and North Quabbin regions show that while some do not currently
use public transit, they believe they will come to rely on it as they grow older. This will have large
impacts on the transit system.
5
This based on the proportion of individuals in in this age class who use transit and not the proportion of transit
riders who are in this age class.
4-5 | P a g e
Figure 17: Older Populations
4-6 | P a g e
Population Density
The majority of trips (transit or non-transit) originate or end at the home, making population an
important indicator of potential transit use. Population density is used in this analysis instead of the
total population because it accounts for varying area sizes. High density areas are typically found in
urban centers consisting of multifamily units, mixed-use developments, limited parking, and walkable
environments, all of which generate higher transit ridership. The average population density in the
Franklin Region is 85 persons per square mile, which is lower than the state average of 858 persons per
square mile. The densest areas are located in Greenfield, the village of Turners Falls in Montague and
pockets of density in Southwick and Orange as well. As shown in Figure 18, many of dense population
areas are served by FRTA routes.
4-7 | P a g e
Figure 18: Population Density
4-8 | P a g e
Employment Density
According to APTA, commuting for work purposes is the number one reason people take transit. As
such, it is imperative that transit systems serve areas with high concentrations of employment. Within
the FRTA service area, there are 37,605 jobs, which equates to an average of 30.9 jobs per square mile.
Employment centers tend to be concentrated in the city centers or in industrial parks. Many of the
densest employment areas are served by FRTA (Figure 19). It is important to note that Amherst and
Northampton businesses and schools are major employers for FRTA community residents but are not
FRTA member communities. Since the jobs do not reside in the FRTA service region they have not been
included but transit connections to these communities are crucial.
4-9 | P a g e
Figure 19: Employment Density
4-10 | P a g e
Home and work are the most common origin and destinations according to APTA. Since population and
employment densities are the best approximation for determining the level of demand, these two
variables were combined to examine service frequencies based on thresholds. 6 As job and population
densities increase, the headway for transit service should decrease (Table 4). Figure 20 indicates that
the demand for more frequent service is concentrated in the urban cores of Greenfield and along the
Route 2 corridor in Orange. Much of the FRTA service area is rural and does not warrant fixed-route
service.
Table 4: Frequency Thresholds
Jobs & Population per Square mile
3,000-6,500
6,501-16,000
16,001-250,000
250,001+
Fixed-Route Headway
60 Min
30 Min
15 Min
5 Min
6
These estimates are based on of data from the Urban Development Intensities in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area by Terry Holzheimer,
Public Transportation and Land Use Policy by Boris Pushkarev, and TCRP Report 111 Elements Needed to Create High Ridership Transit Systems.
4-11 | P a g e
Figure 20: Transit Demand - Level of Service
4-12 | P a g e
Income Level
Median household income is used as a measure for propensity to use transit. Automobile ownership is
expensive and as household incomes decline so does the likelihood of having access to a private vehicle.
Work-trip market shares from the American Community Survey show that as income rises, the
percentage of people using transit decreases. The average median household income in the Franklin
Regional area is $63,011. Despite this average, however, there are some areas in the region, especially
within the northern most communities, Orange, Greenfield, and Montague that have substantially lower
income levels. These areas are depicted in Figure 21.
4-13 | P a g e
Figure 21: Median Household Income
4-14 | P a g e
Zero-Vehicle Households
The FRTA system serves an area where 5.33% of households do not have access to a personal vehicle.
Concentrations of these households coincide with low-income and dense population areas shown on the
previous maps. Figure 22 depicts these zero-vehicle household areas concentrated in Greenfield, Orange
and village of Turners Falls in Montague.
Figure 22: Zero Vehicle Household
4.22 Methodology
To determine if FRTA’s service is deployed in the most effective way possible to accommodate the
transit needs of the regions workforce, the level of potential demand was calculated. The level of
potential demand is based on the following: population density, number of jobs, percent of zero-vehicle
households, proximity to schools and hospitals, median household income, the enrollment at local
colleges and universities, park and ride lots, commuter rail stations, the percent of households with
4-15 | P a g e
people with disabilities, and the percent of the population above the age of 65 7. The data was derived
from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate and the MassGIS website (Table
5). The level of demand was analyzed at the census block level.
Table 5: Transit Demand Data Variables and Sources
Variable
Population
Area
Zero-Vehicle household
Schools
Hospitals
Median Household Income
Colleges and Universities
Disabled Households
Employment
Park and Ride Lots
Commuter Rail
Elderly Populations
Priority Development Data
Source
ACS 5 Year table 2008-2012 SF 3 Table B00001
Cartographic boundary files US census
MassGIS from Mass - DOE
MassGIS from the DPH - OEMS
MassGIS from National Center for Education Statistics
MAPC statewide employment data
MassDOT
MassGIS from CTPS
PVPC and FRCOG
To compile the data, all GIS shape file layers and tables were loaded into ArcGIS and joined on the
appropriate variables. Data was then transformed to the census block level if it did not exist in this form
already and then clipped to the RTA service area. A model was then run in ArcGIS to calculate the
population density, percent of zero-vehicle households, percent of households with people with
disabilities, percent of the population older than 65, and employment density within each block. This
data along with the median household income, school, hospitals, park and ride lots, commuter rail, and
colleges and universities was then extracted into Excel for each block within the service area of FRTA.
Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method 8, the data for the population density, number of
jobs, percent of zero-vehicle households, percent of households with people with disabilities, percent of
the population older than 65 and median household income were arranged into five classes. Clipping
the data during the first step allows for the evaluation of only the RTA service area, so the values for the
class breaks differ among different RTAs. This is important as it minimizes the data being skewed by
areas not serviced by the RTA and allows for a more accurate picture of whether the RTA’s service is
deployed in the most effective way possible for that region.
7
Priority development area data was not included because there are no officially designated PDAs in this region.
8
The Jenks method is a way of arranging data into different classes by minimizing the average deviation from the mean an
maximizing each class’s deviation from the means of other groups. It is based on standard deviation.
4-16 | P a g e
Population density, number of jobs, percent of the population older than 65, percent of zero-vehicle
households, and percent of disabled households all have a positive correlation with transit demand, and
thus higher values were places into higher classes. Those that fell into class 1 were given a score of 1,
class 2 received a score of 2, etc. up to class five. Income has a negative correlation with ridership, so
those that fell into class 1 were given a score of 5, class 2 a score of 4, class 3 a score of 3, class 4 a score
of 2, and class 5 a score of 1. The scores were then weighted based on highly recognized research done
by Brian D. Taylor on the determinants of transit ridership 9. The study uses a two stage regression model
to look at more than fifteen census variables in 265 urbanized areas to determine which characteristics
impact the level of transit use the most. The parameter estimates found in the study were used to
weight the classification value given in the previous step for population density, percent of zero-vehicle
households, and median household income. These weights represent the relative impact each variable
has on transit demand, with higher weights being assigned to variables that have a higher likelihood of
increasing the demand for transit within an area.
Taylor’s research showed that the percent of college students has a positive correlation to ridership. A
weighted score was calculated by dividing the number of enrolled students according to the National
Center for Education Statistics by 1,000. For the commuter rail stations, schools, and hospitals one point
was given for each located within the block. Work trips are one of the primary trips taken by individuals
so weight of 1.5 was applied to the classification score for the number of jobs located in a block. Park
and ride lots were scored by dividing the number of spaces by 100 to provide a weighted score for
ridership. Research has also shown that people with disabilities are more likely to use transit than those
without as it may be their only means of motorized transport. A complete set of variables and method
for calculating its value can be seen in Table 6.
9
Taylor, B.D. et al, Nature and/or nurture? Analyzing the determinants of transit ridership across US urbanized areas,
Transport. Res. Part A (2008), doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.06.007
4-17 | P a g e
Table 6: Transit Demand Variables and Formulas
Variable
Population Density
Zero-Vehicle Households
Schools
Hospitals
Median Household Income
Colleges and Universities
Disabled Households
Priority Development Areas
Employment
Park and Ride Lots
Commuter Rail
Older Populations
Value Calculation
Classification score * 0.76
Number of Locations
Number of Locations
Number of Students/1,000
Percent of area that was priority development * 5
Number of spaces/100
Number of Locations
The scores for each variable were then summed for each block to get an overall score for transit
demand by block. This data was then put into GIS and displayed to show demand for the entire region.
Features such as schools, hospitals, park and ride lots, commuter rail stations, key destinations, and
important features were overlaid on the map to provide a frame of reference and to act as supporting
material.
4.23 Transit Demand
FRTA provides fixed-route service to all but six areas that were determined to have a higher demand for
transit (Figure 23). These regions include areas of Bernardston, Orange, Hatfield, Huntington,
Southampton, and Southwick. This section provides a further analysis of these areas and explores why
they have demonstrated transit demand.
4-18 | P a g e
Figure 23: Underserved Areas
4-19 | P a g e
Area A (Figure 24) in Bernardston has a demonstrated demand for transit because of the 177 jobs
associated with the Kringle Candle distribution center as well as its lower median household income of
$50,000 compared to the region’s average of $63,000. This area is also a town center and has been
designated as a Priority Development Area (PDA) by FRCOG. In 2011 a study was completed by FRCOG
to determine the feasibility of extending service to the Gill/Bernadston/Northfield region due to the
proposed opening of the C.S. Lewis College. The study recommended implementing a fixed route with
two service options. The service was not implemented, primarily because the college never opened. This
is a very rural area, and while it is not a strong candidate for fixed-route service, it may make sense to
consider alternative demand response options. A further revaluation of the area is suggested to
determine is fixed route service is still viable without the college.
Figure 24: Area A: Bernadston
4-20 | P a g e
Area B (Figure 25) in Orange has a demonstrated demand for transit because of high employment, a
high rate of zero-vehicle households, and a low median household income. This area is home to three
industrial parks. The Orange Innovation Center and the Orange Industrial Park have 100-249 employees
each. The third, Randall Pond, is currently quite small and is a focus area for economic growth within
Orange. This area has a rate of zero-car households of 38.4% and a median household income of
$38,000. It is also designated as a PDA by FRCOG and is home to Mahar Regional High School, which has
742 students. Currently FRTA Route 32 services Route 2, a downtown development area in Orange, and
lays over for 26 minutes at the Hannaford’s.
Figure 25: Area B: Orange
4-21 | P a g e
Area C (Figure 26) in Hatfield has a demonstrated demand for transit because it is designated as a PDA
by PVPC. There is also demand due to higher employment and because of two schools and a higher
percentage of houses without a car (9.1%). Currently the closest bus service is on Route 5 via FRTA
Route 31, 1 ½ miles west from the town center.
Figure 26: Area C: Hatfield
4-22 | P a g e
Area D (Figure 27) in Huntington has a demonstrated demand for transit because it is designated as a
PDA by PVPC. The area also has a higher rate of zero-vehicle households (10.9%) and a lower median
household income ($42,000). Huntington is a rural community with no fixed-route service within its
vicinity.
Figure 27: Area D: Huntington
4-23 | P a g e
Area E (Figure 28) in Southampton has a demonstrated demand for transit because it is designated as a
PDA by PVPC. This is a mostly rural area with some development along Route 10, the main corridor in
town. In the downtown area, however, population density is higher (3,061 people per square mile)
because of several apartment complexes. In the northeast corner of this area there is a shopping plaza
with a grocery store. This plaza serviced by the PVTA via the Nashawannuck Express.
Figure 28: Area E: Southampton
4-24 | P a g e
Area F (Figure 29) in Southwick has a demonstrated demand for transit because of a lower median
household income ($50,000), a higher rate of zero-vehicle households (up to 8.5%), and pockets of
residential density (up to 4,000 people per square mile). The area is also designated as a PDA by PVPC
and features commercial development along Route 10. This corridor is approximately 1 ½ miles long
and includes more than 25 small employers collectively employing approximately 500 people.
Figure 29: Area F: Southwick
There are areas in the FRTA service area which are possible candidates for service modifications, which
would better deploy service to meet the needs of the region’s workforce and improve access to
employment. Operating night service 10 on many of the routes would allow for second and third shift
employees to use transit. Providing service outside of traditional workdays (weekdays) and times would
allow for additional trips besides those for work. FRTA has demonstrated success at connecting services
10
Night service is defined as service that runs between 7 PM and 11 PM.
4-25 | P a g e
to regional employment centers but more can be done. To understand what the system can achieve, we
must first understand what the current demand is. Appendix A has maps of each route within the FRTA
service area depicting the regional demand within ¼ mile of each route. Recommendations in the
following chapters will be designed to strengthen job access and develop even better connections.
4-26 | P a g e
Fare Analysis
Burke & Company
5. FARE RATES AND COLLECTION METHODS
5.1 Collection Methods
The Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) purchased and installed GFI Genfare Electronic Validating
Fareboxes in 2009. Fareboxes are installed on all fixed route vehicles. Passengers are able to purchase
stored value cards on board the buses or at the JWO Transit Center.
Farebox
The farebox is capable of electronically validating and verifying all coins and bills inserted for payment as
well as the magnetic fare tickets. All coins and bills are automatically identified by denomination,
without operator action. All invalid coins and bills are automatically rejected and returned to the
passenger. The farebox assists operators with verification of the fare deposited by showing the
Operator Control Unit (OCU) the value of coins and bills inserted. All accepted coins and bills will be
deposited into a single cashbox, securely compartmentalized to separate the coins and bills. The fare
only recognizes exact fares and no change is given for over payment. Instead the farebox will issue a
magnetic change card with the excess value stored on it. This card can be used for future trips.
5.2 Fare Structure
FRTA fares vary by route. In 2009 FRTA modified their fare structure and there the fare for the Route 23
increased from $2.50 to $3.00 and the Route 32 went from $1 to $1.50. Currently FRTA has free
transfers for up to 60 minutes unless you are transferring to the Route 23 due to the higher fare. Free
fares are offered to passengers with a valid MA Commission for Blind card, and Veterans with proper
identification. Elderly persons over the age of 60, Medicare card holders and disabled passengers
receive a half price fare with a photo ID. FRTA offers a wide range of fares based on the route, which
can be found in Table 7.
Table 7: Fares
Fixed Route Single Trip
Route 21, 22
Route 23
Route 31, 32, 41
Children under 5
$1.00
$3.00
$1.50
Free
5.3 National Best Practices
This chapter provides an overview of different fare policies and fare media that are used throughout the
United States. While the fare policies and practice of FRTA reflect local needs and practices, the
comparison with national standards can provide helpful insight and guidance regarding ways to improve
5-1 | P a g e
available fare media and policies. The fare policy and standards section describes various policies and
fare pass types employed by transit agencies and represent standard fare practices on a national level.
A wealth of information regarding best practices in fare policy, technology, and fare media is presented
by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and forms the basis of this section. Information is
also supplemented by research on specific fare practices of transit agencies throughout the country.
An overall summary of TCRP Report 94, the update on Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies shows
that 11:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall fare levels are increasing, specifically the base cash fares
Agencies are moving towards a more simplified fare structure
Many agencies are moving away from a policy of free or reduced cost transfers and replacing
the transfer policy with a day pass that can be purchased onboard vehicles
Pre-paid and multi-trip fare media is growing
Many agencies have either implemented or are exploring Smart Card technologies
Regional fare integration, where multiple operators within a metropolitan region, are moving
towards a common fare policy and media improving the customer experience
5.31 Fare Technology and Media
Fare technology and media represent the primary hardware and software for collecting passenger fares
onboard transit vehicles. Transit agencies throughout the country use a variety of different fare
technology and media (how the fare is paid). The technology and media have evolved greatly over the
years. Current fare technology runs the range from non-registering fareboxes which are literally just
containers that house the fare revenue deposited by passengers all the way up to SmartCard
technologies that allow passengers to pay their fare with a quick pass of a credit card size fare
instrument. Technology is evolving in such a way that some agencies have been experimenting with
paying fares using SmartPhone applications. Some systems, primarily rail and Bus Rapid Transit systems,
have off-board fare collection technology with a proof of payment system. Below is a description of
different fare technology and media.
Non-registering fareboxes are the simplest fare technology. These fareboxes are little more than
containers where passengers are able to deposit fares. These fareboxes can only accept cash fares or, if
the system utilizes them, fare payment coupons. Flash passes, coupons, and punch cards are used for
prepaid fare media. These fareboxes do not have the ability to track ridership payment characteristics.
Many operators who use these fareboxes will have a separate passenger counter device that the
operator manual “clicks” for each fare type. Very few systems use non-registering fareboxes nowadays.
11
Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies pages 2 through 5
5-2 | P a g e
Registering fareboxes allow for fares to be paid and data to be collected regarding fare types. These
fareboxes can collect the number of passengers boarding a bus by each fare type for each trip operated.
Registering fareboxes can be designed to accept different types of fare media including flash or punch
passes or even magnetically coded fare cards. With magnetically coded fare cards, the fare type can be
read automatically by the farebox. For punch and flash passes, operators can manually enter
information regarding fare type paid. These are currently the most common types of fareboxes.
The newest fare technology used by transit agencies are known as a SmartCard system. The SmartCard
fare instrument is the size of a credit card and can be loaded with any kind of pass or stored value
passes. SmartCard readers are needed on fareboxes in order to process fares. Similar to the
magnetically coded fare media, many different fare types are available and are automatically counted by
the farebox itself. By installing SmartCard readers at each door of a transit vehicle, multiple door
boarding can be facilitated. Another advantage of SmartCards is that they can be used by multiple
systems. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Charlie Card, which is also accepted
by ten of the fifteen Regional Transit Authorities 12, is an example of a SmartCard. There is a high cost to
transit agencies when implementing SmartCards as they require new or modified fareboxes, and the
fare media itself is rather expensive.
SmartCard technologies are constantly evolving such as with contactless technology where a user no
longer swipes a farecard but simply taps the card on a reader and enters and mobile ticketing where
ones pays their fare from their smartphone. An example of a contactless card is the Washington METRO
SmarTrip card. Transit agencies are also starting to experiment with fare payment through cellular
telephone. With this, the cellular telephone operates as a SmartCard and has the ability to store
multiple pass options and fare types. This works by riders downloading an application onto their cell
phone, payment is processed through the app and a transit pass is produced on the person’s phone 13.
This mobile ticketing system is currently used by TriMet in Portland, OR, the first agency in the US to
pilot this for fixed route. The user simply selects their rider and mode type to purchase a ticket, then
when they want to use it they select the ticket which generates a QR code that the fare inspector can
scan. The technology was developed by GlobeSherpa, a Portland based software company. Similar
technology, developed by Bytemark, was deployed in 2014 at Capital Metro in Austin, TX. Locally the
MBTA uses technology developed by Masabi for mobile payments on their commuter rail and ferry
systems.
12
Charlie Card is accepted for fare payment by the following operators: Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, Brockton Area Transit Authority, Cape Ann Transportation
Authority, Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority, Lowell Regional Transit Authority, Merrimack Valley Regional
Transit Authority, MetroWest Regional Transit Authority, Montachusetts Regional Transit Authority, Southeastern
Regional Transit Authority, and Worcester Regional Transit Authority
13
http://trimet.org/mobiletickets/
5-3 | P a g e
In the future, other technologies such as the Magic Band which Disney uses as admission to the park,
connects to your credit card for easy payment and unlocks your hotel room, may be possible for travel
on transit. The band contains a short range RFID chip similar to the read-only RFID 14 chip found in
contactless SmartCard technology. The Disney Magic Band is similar to the UBand made by IDenticard.
The UBand uses MIFARE 15 technology to provide contactless access and payment and is currently being
used by Mohawk College in Ontario. In the United Kingdom, Barclaycard launched the bPay band a
similar wrist band which users can link any VISA or MasterCard debit or credit card to and can be used at
any establishment that accepts contactless payments (300,000 locations). Amongst the many things the
band can be used to pay for is the fare (bus or rail) on Transport for London 16.
Figure 30: SmartCard Technologies. Left WMATA Smartrip contact-less; Center TRI MET mobile ticketing; Right Disney's
Magic Band
Fare media has evolved drastically over the last 100 years for transit from entirely cash based system to
the new innovative contact technology merging today. The first fare media was the token followed by
the ticket. These allowed transit agencies to offer discounts over the cash fare. Tickets were used until
magnetic stripe cards were introduced, this allowed for the development of passes. Tap cards were
developed next with RFID technology and had the capability of operating as a stored value card and as a
daily, weekly monthly, etc pass. The newest technology is contactless “open” fare payments which are
directly linked to debit or credit cards and can be in plastic card form, on a mobile device and now a
wrist band. Regardless of the type of technology used reducing cash transfers benefits the transit
system all around. The overhead cost to process cash as opposed to cards can be as much as double due
14
Radio-frequency identification cards (RFID) is a wireless chip which uses electromagnetic fields to transfer data,
15
MIFARE is the name of the technology (chip) that is created by NXP. It complies with international standard
ISO/IEC 14443 for data security and transmission protocols for communication with contactless integrated circuit
cards , proximity cards and identification cards.
16
The agency who oversees the London rail and bus network.
5-4 | P a g e
to the security measures and personal needs to empty vaults and count money. Improved farebox
technologies not only can improve operating costs but can speed up the boarding time of passengers
thus reducing the overall travel time.
In Helsinki, an innovative fare strategy is being implemented through a new market approach viewing
Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The principle of the MaaS approach focuses on door-to-door service and
mobility as a whole package, instead of each mode individually. Through this method, users are able to
plan their trip through one portal and payment system. Different packages provide riders with unique
options to meet their transit needs. For example, an urban commuter package, available for purchase at
a set price point, may include free public transport in the rider’s home city, up to 60 miles in taxi
services, 300 miles for rental cars, and 1,000 miles in domestic public transport. Packages are flexible
and can be adjusted to meet the needs of different service areas. Incorporating all transport modes into
one, user-friendly interface will provide seamless service to the rider and encourage the use of public
transportation over personal vehicles.
Figure 31: Helsinki Mobility as a Service App
Some systems have implemented off-board fare collection/proof of payment fare payment. Off board
fare collection requires fare equipment located at stops and stations and allows for faster boardings.
Passengers pay their fare off-board and are issued a receipt or their farecard is validated for the trip.
Fare inspectors randomly check to see if passengers have paid their fares by scanning farecards or
looking at the receipts. Those who have not paid fares are issued a citation.
5-5 | P a g e
5.32 Fare Policy and Standard Practices
A review of fare policies around the country provides a myriad of different fare types and fare media.
Fare media types include unlimited ride passes and multi-ride/stored value transit fares. A description
of cash fares and transfer policies are included in this section. Fare policies and standard practices vary
amongst various transit agencies and are suited to meet individual local conditions.
Fare Policies
Cash fares are accepted by almost all transit agencies. Most transit agencies accept only exact fare and
will not make change. A small number of agencies will make change for passengers on some or all
services. Some agencies have limitation with their fare collection equipment that only allows the
farebox to accept coins, while most operators are able to accept both bills and coins.
Unlimited ride passes allow users to take as many rides as needed over a set period of time. These
passes are a pre-paid fare media and come in many increments. Most agencies have either a 30-day,
31-day or “monthly” pass. For a shorter duration, agencies may have a week pass or even a two-week
pass. The shortest duration pass is a one-day pass and agencies that sell a one-day typically do not have
free or discounted transfers. Unlimited ride passes provide a discount over cash fares, with the discount
related to the number of times the pass is used as it represents a single payment over a time period.
The issue with unlimited ride passes is that it typically requires a large upfront payment by customers to
take advantage of the discount, which may be difficult for lower income users.
Multi-ride passes or stored value cards allow for passengers to buy a set number of transit trips ahead of
time usually at a discount. These pass/stored value cards allow for the pre-paid purchase of discounted
fares. Similar to the unlimited ride passes; these fares require a large upfront payment, although not as
large as the unlimited ride passes, in order to take advantage of discounts. Multi-ride passes/Stored
value cards can come in a variety of different types of media and formats including ticket books, tokens,
punch cards, or as stored values on a fare card or SmartCard.
Some agencies have instituted free fares. Free fares primarily exist in places where the primary
generator in the area is a major university. In these areas, funding sources for transit services come
from the university. In other locations, college students are provided a free transit pass that is funded
by student service fees, parking revenues at the college, general fund revenue, or a combination of
these sources. An example of a system that has a free fare policy is Chapel Hill Transit in North Carolina,
which serves the University of North Carolina 17.
Transfer policies are a very important consideration and part of any fare policy and fare media. Transit
passengers have varied origin and destination locations so it is impossible to serve all passengers
17
http://www.townofchapelhill.org/town-hall/departments-services/business-management/fee-schedules/transitpolicies-fee-schedules
5-6 | P a g e
without requiring passengers to transfer. Many systems are designed around bringing passengers to a
central location where they can connect to another bus to reach their destination. Other systems have
transfers occur at points where two or more routes intersect. Regardless of transfer location, transfer
policies have an impact on ridership. The existing transfer policies include allowing transfers to occur for
free, transfers to occur at a low cost, or requiring passengers to pay full fare when transferring. Some
systems have different policies based on fare media used, for example a free transfer if using a
SmartCard while cash passengers have to pay full fare when transferring.
Standard Practices
Fare policies typically respond to local needs. In some locales the fare policy and changes to fare
policies are well codified. In other locations, fare policies change only in response to an identified issue;
otherwise fare policies may not change at all for a long time. Fare policies need to be responsive to local
needs. The fare policy has to be cognizant of the need to provide an adequate local share of operating
costs. That being said the fare policy has to also strike a balance between being equitable to all users,
encourage pre-paid fares, encourage ridership, and the need to raise local revenue.
Federal rules and guidelines need to be taken into account in fare policy discussions. Environmental
justice concerns also need to be taken into account as part of fare policy and fare policy changes as it
relates to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Legal proceedings have forced modifications to fare
policies and fare policy changes due to environmental justice concerns 18. Environmental justice
concerns are addressed by ensuring that fare policy changes are equitable for all services an agency
operates. Fare policies also need to be consistent with rules and guidelines with the American’s with
Disabilities Act.
As stated previously, very few agencies have a policy regarding fare changes. Primarily, agencies adjust
fare levels based on a specific need, usually the need for additional directly generated revenue. This
could be in response to cuts in funding from other sources, changes in cost structure, or overall cost
increases. On a philosophical level many agencies prefer to increase fares along with improvements in
service so that passengers are receiving “better service” as part of higher fares.
The key elements of a fare policy include a base cash fare, multi-ride fare media, unlimited ride passes,
and a transfer policy. Ten out of fifteen RTA’s in Massachusetts use the Charlie Card SmartCard for fare
payment which does have the ability to store unlimited ride passes. Beyond this fare policy, transit
agencies have been partnering with colleges and universities to fund UPass programs which provide free
trips for students and guaranteed revenues for the transit agency.
18
Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 94: Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies page 5
5-7 | P a g e
5.4 Conclusion
Moving forward, the best plan of action involves each of the RTA’s joining together to research and
develop innovative fare policies and media for the next generation. Through collaboration, the RTA’s
have the chance to implement fare strategies that can function collectively across Massachusetts and be
a model for innovation. As the Sheidt & Bachmann fareboxes and CharlieCard technology, that many of
the RTAs have, becomes outdated and must be replaced this present an opportunity for the RTAs to
explore alternative technology such as the MaaS project in Helsinki, mobile payments, or the
bPay/Magic Band/Uband. A system-wide approach, as opposed to individual fare strategies for each
RTA, will foster a cohesive transit system and provide riders an easier opportunity to travel between the
RTA’s.
5-8 | P a g e
Environmental
Burke & Company
6. ENVIRONMENTAL
In 2010, MassDOT launched their sustainability and environmental responsibility initiative to “green”
the state transportation system, called GreenDOT. All branches of the Commonwealth’s transportation
system (transit, air, highway and planning) are subject to the policies contained within the GreenDOT
initiative. The policy is driven by three primary objectives: (1) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, (2)
promote healthy transportation options, and (3) support smart growth and development. In order to
meet these objectives and to become a national leader in sustainability and transportation, MassDOT
created an implementation plan in 2012 that outlines 7 themes (Air, Energy, Land, Materials, Planning
Policy & Design, Waste, Water) and 16 sustainability goals. As part of the GreenDOT policy, each
indicator was given a priority for implementation. Indicators for immediate implementation are those
that were to be implemented by 2013, medium-term by 2015 and long-range policy targets for 2020.
While the concept of improving sustainability and environmental responsibility would prove beneficial
for Massachusetts, coordination and input from the 15 RTAs across the state has not yet occurred. In
addition, while the GreenDOT policy outlines 331 indicators applicable to the rail and transit division,
not all of these are relevant to the fifteen RTAs across the state 19. Those that are not relevant are often
the responsibility of the MBTA, Bay State Roads, metropolitan planning organizations, and/or MassDOT
but not the RTA. Many of the policies extend beyond the responsibility and reach of any of the RTAs and
the timeline for achieving the indicators are not realistic or necessarily right sized for the RTA’s. Many of
the RTA’s (either individually or collectively) will require more time to implement these environmental
initiatives. A logical step is for each RTA to coordinate and confirm with MassDOT which initiatives are
the most appropriate and achievable actions that can be taken and how best to achieve them.
In addition to GreenDOT, Massachusetts recently passed regulation 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming
Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation Sector and the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation. The purpose of the act is to assist the state in achieving their goals of reduced
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). There are various parts to the regulation that require interagency
coordination between MassDOT, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional Transit
Authoritys (RTAs), the Department of Environmental Protection and the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs. The RTAs are specifically given 4 tasks:
•
•
•
•
19
Conduct comprehensive service reviews (CSRs),
Identify service enhancements to increase passenger ridership
Identify vehicle technology and operational improvements that can reduce GHG emissions
Work within the MPO process to prioritize and fund GHG reduction projects and investments
Mass GreenDOT policy http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/GreenDOT.aspx
6-1 | P a g e
The RTAs along with MassDOT and the MPOs will be required to calculate GHG impacts on all RTP
projects, consider GHG impacts when prioritizing and selecting projects, and report GHG impacts of all
projects. Spreadsheet calculation tools have been developed for calculating GHG emissions and air
quality analysis on bus replacements, new bus services, complete street programs and park and ride
lots. The Department of Environmental Protection requires that the GHG impacts be measured for all
projects and reported annually.
This section of the FRTA plan examines how the policy’s themes and their goals are being applied to
regional transit authorities and which ones, in particular the FRTA, is currently meeting. There are a total
of 331 indicators identified in the GreenDOT policy, of which only 238 or 72% are applicable to the FRTA.
Of the 238 applicable indicators, 118 are short term indicators which are recommended to be in place by
2013, 97 are medium term indicators to be implemented by 2015 and the remaining 23 indicators
should be implemented by 2020. FRTA has met 36 (31%) of the short term, is working towards meeting
25 (26%) of the medium-term and 7 (30%) of the long-range indicators. (Figure 33). Overall, the FRTA is
meeting 63 (26%) of the 238 applicable indicators (Figure 32).
The FRTA is working continuously to achieve the indicators and has accomplished many of them ahead
of schedule. Some of the applicable indicators are joint responsibilities of the FRTA, MassDOT, the
planning commission or the municipality and they must work collaboratively to achieve success.
Additionally, of the 238 indicators that do not apply, some reasons may be because they are specific to
the MBTA, specific to rail, require that there has been or will be new construction, they are for MassDOT
owned facilities, they are for environmentally sensitive land areas, and/or there may be other
constraints beyond the FRTAs control.
6-2 | P a g e
All Indicators
26%
2%
72%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 32: All Applicable Indicators Level of Attainment
All Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Meet
Working Towards
Not meeting
2013
2015
2020
Figure 33: All Applicable Indicators Attainment by Year
6-3 | P a g e
6.1 GreenDOT Policy
The seven themes of GreenDOT that aim to reduce carbon footprints and improve sustainability include
air, energy, land, materials, planning (policy and design), waste and water. Each theme has at least two
goals and several objectives and indicators for meeting the goal. The indicators are measurable tasks
that describe sustainable practices. Table 8 outlines the goals, objectives and indicators for each theme.
For each indicator FRTA was asked if they currently are achieving it, are working towards achieving the
indicator, do not meet the indicator and are not currently working towards or if it is not applicable to
them.
Table 8: GreenDOT Goals, Objectives and Indicators
Theme
Air
Energy
Land
Materials
Planning, Policy & Design
Waste
Water
Total
Goals Objectives
Indicators
Applicable Indicators
2
11
49
37
2
7
39
20
2
9
45
34
3
14
63
53
3
12
56
39
2
9
33
29
2
9
46
27
16
71
331
238
The theme with the largest percentage of indicators met is energy at 55% of the 34 that are applicable.
6.21 Air
Air goals include improving the state’s air quality and reducing greenhouse emissions. To improve
statewide air quality FRTA has installed a wood pellet boiler at the John W. Olver Transit Center
(JWOTC). This boiler uses locally sourced wood pellets and the CO2 released into the air is equivalent to
the amount the biofuel absorbed during their lifetime making them carbon neutral (Figure 34).
6-4 | P a g e
Figure 34: Wood Pellet Boiler
There are 49 indicators for air but only 37 (48%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 6 (16%),
working towards 2 (6%) and not meeting 29 (78%) of the applicable air indicators as seen in Figure 35.
Figure 36 outlines the air indicators by implementation time and level of achievement. There are 12
indicators in the air theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable indicators 15 are short
term indicators, 14 are medium-term, and 8 long-range. Of those that are applicable to FRTA they have
met 4 (27%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are working towards or meeting 3
(21%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators and 1 (13%) of the long-range indicators. Even with the
JWOTC it has been difficult for FRTA to meet many of the indicators due to limited funding, small fleet
size and limited staff.
6-5 | P a g e
Air Indicators
16%
6%
78%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 35: Air Indicators Level of Attainment
Air Indicators by Year
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
Working Towards
2020
Meet
Figure 36: Air Indicators Attainment by Year
6-6 | P a g e
Table 9: Air Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Improve Statewide Air Quality
Objective: Reduce emissions from maintenance & construction equipment
Indicator
Contribution
Retrofit + use of hybrid engine system for each vehicle class piloted
No
Diesel retrofit program for on and off-road vehicles expanded
No
Hours of non-revenue vehicle operation reduced by 5% through
operations streamlining
Electric and/or full exhaust cycle motors have replaced 2-stroke
equipment
All new heavy equipment purchased run hybrid, CNG, or other high
efficiency engines
No
No
No
Objective: Decrease total engine idling
Indicator
Contribution
On-board electrification of maintenance equipment for each vehicle
type piloted
No
MassDOT compliance with anti-idling laws ensured
Yes
On + off-road anti-idling policies included in all construction,
maintenance + service contracts
Anti-idling policies, more restrictive than state law developed to
eliminate unnecessary idling
Anti-idling technology in transit vehicle + maintenance truck
operations utilized
90% of MassDOT over-road maintenance vehicles run hybrid engines
or have on-board electrification
No
No
No
No
Objective: Decrease volatile organic compound discharge from facilities
Indicator
Spray painting restricted to permitted booths + emissions controls
installed at spray shops
All maintenance yard gasoline fueling pumps retrofitted with vapor
recovery systems
Technologies for diesel + jet fuel vapor recovery explored +
implemented where feasible
Air emission control training provided to all maintenance employees
Contribution
Not Applicable - We do not have spray shops
Yes
No
No
Objective: Increase fuel efficiency of operating transit fleet
Indicator
100% of transit bus fleet replaced or retrofitted with hybrid systems or
best in class fuel efficiency vehicles
Statewide diesel transit + school bus retrofit program optimized +
balanced with efficient vehicle purchases
Contribution
No
No
20 new high efficiency commuter rail diesel locomotive in service
Not Applicable - Do not operate Commuter rail
40 new high efficiency commuter rail locomotives purchased
6-7 | P a g e
Objective: Increase efficiency of transportation systems operations
Indicator
Contribution
Bus route efficiency measures implemented by all transit operators
Working towards - Regional transit plan
Planned bridges and ROWs designed to increase options for double
tracked lines + allow double-stack cars
Six rail corridors upgraded to increase speed including separated grade
crossings or other improvements
Not Applicable - Do not operate rail
Dwell time of commuter rail trains at stations decreased
Program initiated to increase the number of high level commuter rail
platforms
Electronic tolling facility of road and parking facilities launched
Not Applicable - No electronic tolling
Goal 2: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Objective: Increase vehicle electrification facilities
Indicator
At least 30 electric vehicle (EV) chargers installed along state highway
system + transit parking areas
All major park and ride, + transit parking lots (>50 vehicles) have
charging stations
Feasibility analysis of expanding the use of battery + fuel cell powered
buses completed
Contribution
No
No
No
Optimal Statewide EV plug-in station network planned + implemented
Not Applicable - State Initiative
The feasibility of electric commuter rail locomotives studied within the
Commuter Rail Master Plan
Objective: Increase use of alternative + renewable fuels
Indicator
Contribution
Bio-fuel (such as B10-B20 biodiesel) tested in oil heated buildings
No
20% biodiesel (B20) blend purchased for oil heated buildings
No
Recycled vegetable oil / non-food stock impairing fuel purchased for
biodiesel blends
Volume purchasing of alternative fuels established across facilities +
divisions
No
Yes
B10 + B20 biodiesel pilot begun in all diesel vehicle types
Yes
B10 to B20 biodiesel utilized in all diesel vehicles, depending on
availability, vehicle type + season
Yes
Objective: Increase fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles
Indicator
Vehicle fleet inventoried + prioritized for replacement and retrofit
based on emissions reduction
A portion of light duty fleet in urban areas integrated with car-share
programs
Light duty fleet downsized with carpooling, interdepartmental vehicle
use, + car-sharing
All light duty vehicles replaced or retrofitted with hybrid, electric, CNG
or best in class technology
50% of DOT light vehicle fleet replaced or retrofitted with zero or
partially zero emission vehicles
Contribution
No
No
No
Working towards - Some but not all
No
6-8 | P a g e
Objective: Increase fuel efficiency of maintenance + construction equipment
Indicator
Contribution
Performance measures added to maintenance + construction contracts
for green fleets
No
15% of maintenance fleet replaced with best in class emission ratings
No
Objective: Increase telecommuting + meetings by web conference
Indicator
Contribution
Teleconference technology capabilities installed at all offices
Yes
Take home vehicle fleet for office employees eliminated
Not Applicable - We don't have policies for taking
vehicles home
Telecommuting + flex time options expanded for employees
No
Peak hour single occupancy vehicle trips by employees reduced by 20%
No
Objective: Track progress toward statewide GHG reduction + other sustainability goals
Indicator
Contribution
All resource use + purchases reported for performance monitoring
No
MassDOT's GHG emissions target of 40% reduction from a 2002
baseline is met
Not Applicable - We don't track that information
6.22 Energy
Energy goals are focused on consuming less energy and increasing the percentage of energy which
comes from renewable sources. The new JWOTC is the first net-zero energy transit center in the United
States. It has Photovoltaic Arrays which produce 123 megawatts hours annually and provides enough
electricity to power the building (Figure 37). The geothermal pumps provide cooling air for the handling
units, and the solar wall is 900 sq. ft and in the winter months can pre-heat the air as much as 15
degrees.
6-9 | P a g e
Figure 37: Top left: Solar Wall, Bottom Left: Photovoltaic Array, Right: Geothermal Pumps
There are 39 indicators for energy but only 20 (51%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 11 (55%),
working towards 0 (0%) and not meeting 9 (45%) of the applicable energy indicators as seen in Figure
38. Figure 39 outlines the energy indicators by implementation time and level of achievement. There are
19 indicators in the energy theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable indicators 9 are
short term indicators, 7 are medium-term, and 4 long-range. Of those that are applicable to FRTA they
have met 3 (33%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are working towards or
meeting 5 (71%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators and 3 (75%) of the long-range indicators. FRTA is
able to meet many of the long term goals with the JWOTC.
6-10 | P a g e
Energy Indicators
45%
55%
0%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 38: Energy Air Indicators Level of Attainment
Energy Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
Working Towards
2020
Meet
Figure 39: Energy Indicators Attainment by Year
6-11 | P a g e
Table 10: Energy Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Consume Less Energy
Objective: Reduce building electricity use
Indicator
Contribution
Electrical + HVAC use of all buildings + facilities audited
Yes
Office electrical equipment shutdown program implemented
No
Employee education and incentive programs established to encourage
energy use reduction
All buildings not updated in 10 years renovated / overhauled /
consolidated
No
No
Motion sensor/occupancy lighting installed in all buildings
Yes
Electricity purchased by the MBTA reduced by 20% per passenger mile
Not Applicable - Not the MBTA
Objective: Reduce electricity use by outdoor lighting
Indicator
Contribution
Use of incandescent bulbs eliminated
Yes
Outdoor lighting assets + technology inventoried
Yes
50% of all outdoor lighting (ROW, parking lots, tunnels, runways,
airfields) retrofitted
Yes
100% of all outdoor lighting retrofitted
Yes
Electricity consumption for lighting reduced by 50% through retrofits
and operations
No
All traffic signals replaced with LED bulbs
Not Applicable - We do not have traffic signals
Objective: Reduce fuel use for heating buildings + water
Indicator
Contribution
Audit of all heating systems + water fixtures conducted + opportunities
for retrofit identified
Temperatures of all adjustable boilers/heaters reduced
No
All inefficient / electric water heaters replaced with high efficiency
tanks or tankless systems
Oil heating systems converted to natural gas or renewable alternatives
where feasible
Geothermal + cogeneration heating systems studied for all new
buildings
Envelops of all buildings are evaluated and prioritized for insulation
upgrades
Total heating fuel + costs for MassDOT-owned buildings reduced by
20%
Total heating fuel + costs for MassDOT-owned buildings reduced by
35%
Insulation of all heated / air conditioned buildings assessed and
replaced as needed
All MassDOT-owned HVAC systems +/or windows retrofitted or
replaced
Shade tree planting around MassDOT buildings increased to improve
building energy performance
Yes
50% of all inefficient / electric water heaters replaced with high
Yes
No
Not Applicable - We do not have oil heat
Yes
Not Applicable - New building
Not Applicable - We are not in a MassDOT building
Not Applicable
6-12 | P a g e
efficiency tanks or tankless systems
Objective: Reduce electricity consumption by subways + trolleys
Indicator
Contribution
Evaluation of on-board and/or wayside energy recapture conducted for
all subway lines
Electrical systems of all subway lines evaluated and retrofitted where
cost effective
All outdated transit vehicles replaced with high efficiency cars
New subway car purchases contain regenerative braking technology
RFR issued for wayside station regeneration installation
Goal 2: Increase Reliance on Renewable Energy
Objective: Participate in MassDOT Energy Initiative
Indicator
Contribution
Create a MassDOT energy management plan
All energy consumption (electricity / heating / fleet fuel)
tracked + centrally reported
Feasibility study completed for additional wind power
generation sites on MassDOT properties
Not Applicable - MassDOT responsibility
No
Objective: MassDOT GreenDOT Implementation Plan Increase energy produced at MassDOT facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Comprehensive feasibility assessment and renewable energy
generation plan completed
No
4 RFR's issued by MassDOT for additional renewable generation sites
10 new renewable energy projects installed at MassDOT facilities
At least 5% of electricity demand generated by MassDOT renewable
projects
Objective: Purchase more renewable energy
Indicator
Bulk purchasing of green electricity portfolio with other state agencies
initiated
12% of electricity needs met through production or green energy
purchases
25% of electricity needs met through production or green energy
purchases
Contribution
No
Yes
Yes
6.23 Land
Land goals are aimed at using sustainable vegetation maintenance practices and protecting significant
habitat areas and natural landscapes. Many all of the indicators are not applicable because there are no
significant habitats on any of the FRTA property, no endangered species and no surplus land. FRTA has
planted low maintenance plants and a bio-retention garden at the JWOTC in order to minimize impacts
to the land (Figure 40).
6-13 | P a g e
Figure 40: Bio-retention garden at JWOTC
There are 45 indicators for land but only 34 (76%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 8 (24%),
working towards 0 (0%) and not meeting 26 (76%) of the applicable land indicators as seen in Figure 41.
Figure 42 outlines the land indicators by implementation time and level of achievement. There are 11
indicators in the land theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable indicators 17 are short
term indicators, 16 are medium-term, and 1 long-range. Of those that are applicable to FRTA they have
met 5 (29%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are working towards or meeting 2
(13%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators. Meeting 100% of long term indicators has been achieved
through planting native vegetation.
6-14 | P a g e
Land Indicators
24%
0%
76%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 41: Land Indicators Level of Attainment
Land Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
Working Towards
2020
Meet
Figure 42: Land Indicators Attainment by Year
6-15 | P a g e
Table 11: Land Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Minimize Energy + Chemical Use in Maintenance
Objective: Increase acreage of land planted with native / low maintenance vegetation
Indicator
New facilities planted with sustainable, minimally managed native
landscape
Lawn installations around five facilities replaced with natural (low
maintenance) vegetation
Native plant restoration or managed fallow habitat restoration
increased 25% along ROWs
Available land surrounding all rural depots and offices planted with
native vegetation
Contribution
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Objective: Decrease area + frequency of land mowed
Indicator
Contribution
Inventory of grassed area conducted
Turf grass replaced with broad spectrum blend of grasses
including warm season + slow growing for low maintenance
Mowing frequency reduced by 25%
Mower blades raised in turtle habitat + areas contiguous with
natural areas as standard operating procedure
Mowing + brush cutting jobs are scheduled around animal
nesting season to the maximum extent possible
Yes
Not Applicable - We do not use turf grass
Not Applicable
Not Applicable - Our property is not contain turtle
habitat
Not Applicable - We don't have 5 or more
continuous acres
Objective: Implement an integrated vegetation management approach for ROWs + facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Landscape areas inventoried by habitat area + maintenance
regime
Adopted Vegetation Management Plans focus on integrated
management approach
Soil augmentation utilize organic landscape techniques +
minimize nutrient loads to water supplies
Compost materials used as the preferred soil amendment in all
maintenance + construction projects
No
No
No
No
Objective: Require intelligent use herbicides + pesticides in construction + maintenance
Indicator
Contribution
Mechanical weed control utilized to minimize traditional
herbicide use
Herbicides used only in conjunction with integrated +
sustainable roadside/railway vegetation management plans
Increase number of employees trained for herbicide application
to allow more selective application
Integrated pest management (IPM) implemented for all
maintenance projects + construction sites
Ongoing training for employees + technical assistance for
municipalities on organic/IPM practices established
Yes
Not Applicable - do not use herbicide
Not Applicable - do not use herbicide
Not Applicable - o recent projects
No
6-16 | P a g e
Objective: Protect, preserve + enhance woodland + urban tree coverage
Indicator
Contribution
2 to 1 tree replacement policy implemented where woodland
preservation desired
Mature, healthy tree preservation is maximized in maintenance
and project design where feasible
Trees and naturalized landscaping emphasized in revised
Project Development + Design Guide
Sustainable roadside woodland management plan established
for construction and maintenance
Urban street tree coverage enhanced during improvement
projects
Coordinated tree planting policy established to encourage
locally supported urban forestry practices
100,000 trees planted along roadways as part of MassDOT's
Complete Streets practices
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Goal 2: Enhance Ecological Performance of MassDOT Impacted Land
Objective: Increase habitat preservation + enhancements
Indicator
Contribution
Proactively coordinate project development with MA Department of
Fish + Game
Restored + maintained areas increased for non-urban construction
projects
25 nest boxes installed at appropriate locations
No
Surplus land with high natural resource value evaluated for transfer to
appropriate state agencies
Not Applicable - no surplus land
Grassland and/or Woodland Management Plans in place for all
appropriate facilities
Wildlife + endangered species training program provided for
applicable employees
Ten rare species habitat management/ enhancement projects
initiated within right-of-way
No
No
No
No
Not Applicable - no rare species habitat
Objective: Increase wildlife accommodation along ROWs + facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Wildlife hazard mitigation plan(s) implemented for all facilities
Reptile + amphibian + fish passage structures incorporated into
maintenance activities
Project forms revised to include wildlife accommodations
measures early in design review
Wildlife fencing along ROWs/properties within all critical
habitat areas evaluated + installed
No
No
No
Not Applicable - no critical habitat
6-17 | P a g e
Objective: Decrease quantity of invasive + noxious species
Indicator
Contribution
Planting of all listed noxious or invasive species prohibited
No
All stockpiled materials screened for noxious or invasive species
Transportation of cut wood materials limited to avoid beetle +
other pest transportation
Aggressive species early detection + rapid response program in
place
Invasive species control on sites are managed with minimal
adverse impact on other species
Active invasive species management programs in place within
priority habitat areas
All maintenance crews trained on invasive species detection
No
No
No
No
No
No
Objective: Decrease outdoor light pollution
Indicator
Contribution
New lighting designed to conserve energy + avoid light pollution
Light shields installed in coordination with roadway + parking
lot lighting fixture retrofits
Yes
Yes
6.24 Materials
Material goals include using environmentally friendly products; using innovative materials and
construction techniques that leave smaller environmental footprints; and having green facilities. The
24,000 sq. ft. JOWTC embodies environmentally friendly products, innovative materials and techniques
and green facilities. As the first net-zero energy transit center in the US it uses traditional and local
building materials. FRTA though has only met a fraction of the indicators for materials as many of them
also relate to the operations and maintenance facility. That facility, originally a trolley barn, is over 100
years old and in poor shape. FRTA is also working to obtain property to construct a new maintenance
facility.
6-18 | P a g e
Figure 43: John W. Olver Transit Center
There are 63 indicators for materials but only 53 (84%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 8 (15%),
working towards 0 (0%) and not meeting 45 (85%) of the applicable material indicators as seen in Figure
44. Figure 45 outlines the material indicators by implementation time and level of achievement. There
are 10 indicators in the material theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable indicators
30 are short term indicators, 20 are medium-term, and 3 long-range. Of those that are applicable to
FRTA they have met 7 (23%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are working
towards or meeting 1 (5%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators and 0 (0%) of the long-range
indicators.
6-19 | P a g e
Material Indicators
0%
15%
85%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 44: Materials Air Indicators Level of Attainment
Material Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
Working Towards
2020
Meet
Figure 45: Material Indicators Attainment by Year
6-20 | P a g e
Table 12: Material Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Purchase Environmentally Preferred Products
Objective: Implement an environmentally preferred materials purchasing program
Indicator
Contribution
Environmentally preferred materials purchasing programs
implemented in collaboration with OSD
Low or no volatile organic compound furniture + flooring
purchased
100% recycled content paper products purchased
Reclaimed + recycled materials utilized for landscaping +
earthwork
Only refrigerators with low Global Warming Potential (GWP)
refrigerants and insulation purchased
Sustainable Forestry Certified wood for permanent or
temporary construction utilized
Standards for recycled content of traffic control/safety devices
developed
Sustainability practices integrated into all construction and
service contract evaluation criteria
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Objective: Purchase energy efficient equipment
Indicator
Only Energy Star or Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool certified electronic products purchased
Total electronic appliances within office locations reduced
Energy efficient criteria utilized for shop equipment +
machinery purchases
Contribution
Yes
No
No
Objective: Use environmentally friendly cleaning products + procedures
Indicator
Contribution
Maintenance products + procedures utilized that pose least
harm to humans + the environment
Protocols for disposal of all cleaning product waste established
Environmentally friendly cleaning products purchased when
available
Environmental friendly cleaning products required to be used
within vendor service contracts
Yes
No
Yes
No
6-21 | P a g e
Objective: Reduce hazardous chemical use in operations + maintenance
Indicator
Contribution
Hazardous materials substitution program developed
Hazardous materials spill prevention control and
countermeasures plan created
Lead free wheels purchased and steel weighted wheels phased
in to replace older wheels
Natural or organic fertilizers, pesticides, + landscaping materials
purchased
Low or no volatile organic compound paints applied on indoor
facilities
Purchasing lists + disposal protocols for engine service +
maintenance standardized
Technology implemented reducing the quantity of salt applied
to roadways proportional to weather conditions
No
No
No
Not Applicable - no pesticide used
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Objective: Increase opportunities for local vendors or locally sourced products sold at facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Vendor solicitation for MassDOT facilities written to encourage
local ownership / sourced products
Lease language for MassDOT facilities written to encourage
locally sourced products
Local vendors + locally sourced products sold at MassDOT
facilities doubled
Not Applicable - We are not a MassDOT facility
Goal 2: Improve Life-Cycle Impacts of Investments
Objective: Reduce energy inputs into paving operations
Indicator
Contribution
Warm asphalt mix chosen as the standard state specification
and hot mix asphalt eliminated
Two pilots of cold in-place paving completed
Standard specifications + guidelines for expansion of cold inplace paving established
Two pilots of full depth reclamation advertised
Standard specifications + guidelines for expansion of full depth
reclamation projects established
Research to increase the recycled content, reduce energy
inputs, and improve vehicle efficiency of paving completed
Yes
No
No
No
No
Objective: Increase total volume of materials sourced within 200 miles of construction site
Indicator
Total weight/volume/cost of material purchased locally (within
200 miles) measured in all projects
Product source information added to bidding requirements
Cost share of locally sourced materials increased 20% on state
funded projects
Contribution
No
No
No
6-22 | P a g e
Objective: Increase % of recycled materials in paving + concrete installations
Indicator
Contribution
20% of recycled paving material content used in road
resurfacing projects
25% recycled paving material content used in road
reconstruction projects
The highest recycled content paving and base material available
utilized for shared-use paths
Use of recycled rubberized asphalt + rubberized asphalt sealer
increased
Minimum 25% fly ash, slag concrete, or silica flume utilized
Innovative sustainable concrete construction techniques
encouraged in contracts
20% recycled course aggregate concrete used in all suitable
applications
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Objective: Increase albedo factor in hardscapes, rooftops + paving
Indicator
Solar Reflectivity Index minimum of 78 instituted for all roofing
projects
Two innovative roofing (green, vegetation or blue water)
projects piloted
All new roofing installations utilize high measured albedo factor
materials
Albedo factor increased in paving surfaces + hardscape
materials
Urban roadways + parking lots designed to maximize shade
coverage of asphalt + concrete surfaces
Solar Reflectivity Index of at least 30 required for paving
projects
Objective: Design for deconstruction + reuse
Indicator
Road rehabilitation standards developed for reuse of existing
installations
Expertise in designing for deconstruction specified in all RFRs
for design contracts
Procurement criteria include incentives to contractor bids
utilizing higher recycled content materials
Lifecycle analysis in design, project alternative + material
selection included
Readily reusable + renewable materials encouraged in design
specifications
Contribution
No
No
No
No
No
No
Contribution
No
No
No
No
No
6-23 | P a g e
Goal 3: Build Green Facilities for MassDOT
Objective: Design all new facilities to green building standards
Indicator
Contribution
New facilities funded or built by MassDOT over 20,000 sq. ft.
designed to MA LEED Plus
New facilities funded by MassDOT designed to LEED Gold or Net
Zero Energy Building standard
No
No
Objective: Retrofit existing facilities to meet environmental design criteria
Indicator
All window AC units removed from office buildings or replaced
with Energy Star units
Three building retrofits to LEED Existing Buildings Operations +
Maintenance (EBO+M) initiated
Air circulation/filtration of MassDOT owned indoor facilities
improved
Wildlife fencing along ROWs/properties within all critical
habitat areas evaluated + installed
Contribution
No
No
Not Applicable - Not MassDOT employees
Objective: Relocate offices + encourage healthy transportation options
Indicator
Contribution
Offices in town or city centers relocated to be served by transit,
walking + bicycling
Provide transit pass exchange for employees with subsidized
parking benefits
Free parking + take home vehicles for MassDOT urban office
employees eliminated
No
No
Not Applicable - Not MassDOT employees
Objective: Consolidate office + maintenance facilities where feasible
Indicator
MassDOT office + maintenance facility consolidation
opportunity study completed
One office consolidation site piloted
Three pilot consolidation and/or cross utilization maintenance
sites piloted
Contribution
No
No
6.25 Planning, Policy & Design
Planning, policy and design goals are aimed at developing a multi-modal system designed to promote
healthy transportation and livable communities. FRTA promotes healthy transportation by providing
pedestrian and bike amenities in all new facility design. This helps promote Complete Streets and
increase connectivity. All buses are equipped with bike racks. With the Knowledge Corridor upgrades
Amtrak’s Vermonter now stops in Greenfield at the JWOTC making the center a truly multi-modal
station with bus, intercity bus, rail and pedestrian and bike amenities.
6-24 | P a g e
Figure 46: FRTA bike rack
There are 56 indicators for planning, policy and design but only 39 (70%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is
meeting 12 (31%), working towards 3 (8%) and not meeting 24 (61%) of the applicable indicators as seen
in Figure 47. Figure 48 outlines the planning, policy and design indicators by implementation time and
level of achievement. There are 17 indicators in the theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the
applicable indicators 18 are short term indicators, 20 are medium-term, and 0 long-range. Of those that
are applicable to FRTA they have met 7 (39%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators and
are working towards or meeting 8 (40%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators.
Planning, Policy & Design Indicators
31%
8%
Not meeting
61%
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 47: Planning Indicators Level of Attainment
6-25 | P a g e
Planning, Policy & Design
Indicators by Year
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
2020
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 48: Planning Indicators Attainment by Year
Table 13: Planning, Policy & Design Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Design a Multi-Modal Transportation System
Objective: Increase delivery of Complete Streets projects
Indicator
Contribution
Bicycle + pedestrian facilities featured + prioritized in designs,
rather than simply accommodated
Project forms + databases revised to track Complete Streets +
sustainability measures
Update of Project Development + Design Guide underway to
reflect evolution of Complete Streets
Surfaces and facilities of at-grade rail crossings improved for
pedestrian + bicycle travel
All 'driveway' approaches to MassDOT airports, rail stations +
MassDOT provide bicycle + pedestrian access
No
No
No
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Objective: Increase bicycle parking + access to transit
Indicator
Contribution
Transit stations with significant customer car parking (>50
spaces) have covered +/or secure bicycle parking
All MBTA + RTA buses equipped with bicycle racks
Study + pilot programs completed evaluating options for
eliminating peak hour restrictions of bikes on transit
Bike stations at North, South, and Back Bay stations established
with showers + locker facilities
High capacity bicycle coaches operated on all commuter rail
lines + peak-hour access restrictions lifted
Bicycle access to heavy rail lines expanded to all hours except
two 1-hour peak periods
Not Applicable
Yes
No
Not Applicable - Do not operate these stations
6-26 | P a g e
Objective: Improve traffic controls to reduce vehicle emissions, + to support walking + biking
Indicator
Contribution
Inventory of traffic signals + grade crossing signal conducted
All signals evaluated and adjusted for optimal operations for all
users
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Objective: Improve transit system performance statewide
Indicator
Contribution
Bus stop consolidation on key routes assessed
All RTA's have conducted comprehensive service analysis to
improve system connectivity + efficiency
Opportunities for express bus lanes + regional bus services
analyzed
Transit operation efficiency improved while
maintaining/increasing ridership
Transit Signal Priority for all new traffic signals implemented
Payment + boarding system for MBTA light rail + vehicles +
buses improved
Green Line extension + South Coast Rail service completed
No
Yes
No
Working towards
No
No
Goal 2: Promote Healthy Transportation + Livable Communities
Objective: Encourage walking, biking, + transit as active transportation
Indicator
Contribution
MassDOT Bay State Bike Week facilitated + promoted annually
in partnership with MassBike
All office locations have visible bicycle parking locations for
visitors near entrances
Selection of public meeting venues prioritizes locations with
transit, pedestrian + bicycle access
Information on transit, bicycle + pedestrian travel provided on
public meeting announcements
MassDOT sidewalks + bicycle facilities are cleared of snow + ice
simultaneously with vehicle lanes
Navigational signage to transit stations expanded along local
roads and highways
Employees + contractors required to use transit, walk, bike or
carpool to meetings whenever location + service schedules
allow
40% of elementary + middle schools reached through Safe
Routes to Schools program
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Not Applicable - DOT initiative
6-27 | P a g e
Objective: Promote eco-driving + programs to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles
Indicator
Contribution
Eco-driving promoted through digital display boards + customer
facilities
No
Expand commuter options programs
Objective: Indicator
Contribution
Commuter options programs through digital displays promoted
statewide
Parking spots at major transit stations with parking reserved for
car sharing
Covered +/or secure bicycle parking installed at major park +
ride facilities
Secure indoor bicycle parking + shower facilities provided at all
major MassDOT employment centers
No
No
Not Applicable - We don't operate park and ride
facilities
Yes
Objective: Utilize surplus land, parking lots + air rights for transit-oriented developments
Indicator
All properties, including air-rights, studied for development
feasibility
Large parking lots at transit stations analyzed for TOD
redevelopment in the Commuter Rail Master Plan
Four new RFP's issued for land development
At least two mixed use developments on MBTA properties
initiated
Contribution
No
Not Applicable - No commuter rail
No
Not Applicable - Not the MBTA
Goal 3: Triple Bicycling, Transit + Walking Mode Share
Objective: Connect land use planning with transportation planning + investments
Indicator
Contribution
Transit authorities participate in all MassDOT and MPO corridor
studies
RTA's participate in MassDOT MEPA review and mitigation
formation
Land use + transportation planning strategies to support mode
shift incorporated into 2016 RTPs
Yes
GreenDOT Implementation Plan activities incorporated into
MPO's Unified Planning Work Programs
No
Yes
Yes - Since the release of the GreenDOT
Implementation Plan, we have conducted the
following studies that work towards achieving
GreenDOT goals: Alternative Transportation
Planning and Mode
Shift, Feasibility Study of a Bike Share Program in
Greenfield, Improving/Expanding the Franklin
County Bikeway, Expansion of
Rail and Transit in Franklin County, Evaluation of
Park and Ride Facilities, Survey
of Select Populations Regarding Transit Service,
Promotional Support for Mode
Shift, Complete Street Site Assessments (this has
been conducted twice)
6-28 | P a g e
Project evaluation criteria that prioritize mode shift, GreenDOT
+ GHG reduction adopted by MPOs
Complete Commuter Rail Master Plan to evaluate options to
expand capacity + increase ridership along each line
Priority Development Areas (PDAs) + Priority Protection Areas
(PPAs) approved by HED established in all MPOs
Strategic regional visions for 'zero' SOV growth + GHG reduction
adopted by MPOs
State-of-the-practice metric for measuring bicycle and
pedestrian quality of roadways utilized in corridor planning +
design
Yes - Our Project Eval Criteria does take into
consideration the following items: 1) sustainable
development effects; 2) consistency with regional
land use plans; 3) air quality/climate effects; 4)
effect on bicycle and pedestrian safety; 5) effect
on congestion; 6) effect on other modes. There
are other factors it takes into consideration, but
these are the ones that look at GreenDOT topics.
Not Applicable - No commuter rail
No - We have proposed Priority Development
Areas and Emerging Development areas that were
developed as part of our Regional Plan for
Sustainable Development. But they have not been
approved by HED.
Working towards - We have not specified ‘zero’
SOV growth, but we do a have goal in our 2012
Regional Transportation Plan to “Promote
transportation activities and technologies which
conserve energy and reduce travel congestion and
vehicle emissions.” We are in the process of
updating this plan and the draft plan will have
additional goals that more specifically promote
SOV alternatives, but will most likely not call out
zero SOV growth.
No - We are in the process right now of
developing performance measures for bicycling
and walking in the region.
Objective: Stabilize travel demand growth on roadways from single occupancy vehicles
Indicator
Contribution
All rail stations are accessed by Complete Streets
Not Applicable - No commuter rail connections
Objective: Collect data regarding factors influencing mode choices + utilize better planning tools
Indicator
Contribution
Person Miles Travelled (PMT) for all modes measured and/or
estimated annually at state and regional levels
Yes
Public health impacts of major transportation projects
considered in project selection criteria
New methods for collecting travel data for bicycles and
pedestrians piloted
Scenario planning methods utilized by MassDOT and MPOs
instead of traditional growth trend forecasts
Traffic model assumptions for road design revised to assume
limited traffic growth rather than historic VMT growth trends
MassDOT conducts travel demand forecasts with an activity
based model
No - Our project selection criteria include a factor
that examines “Residential effects: right-of-way,
noise, aesthetics, cut-through traffic, other.”
Public health is not specifically mentioned here,
but would be included under these criteria.
No
No - We use traditional growth trend forecasts
developed in partnership with MassDOT, the
Donahue Institute, and the FRCOG.
No - We do not have a traffic model for Franklin
County.
Not Applicable - This is a MassDOT responsibility,
not RTA
6-29 | P a g e
Objective: Increase training opportunities on GreenDOT and Mode Shift
Indicator
Contribution
Coordinated information gateway for shuttles and inter-city bus
travel implemented
Programs for healthy transportation education and travel
training for young + elderly travelers developed statewide
Bay State Roads technical assistance offers materials on
sustainability, mode shift, Complete Streets, and parking
policies
Working towards - have links to PVTA
Yes
Not Applicable - Not Bay State Roads
6.26 Waste
Waste goals aim to reduce the exposure to hazardous waste and minimize the disposal of waste. FRTA is
minimizing waste by recycling, using less material, and installing trash bins and information at the
JWOTC.
Figure 49: Litter control program at JWOTC
There are 33 indicators for waste but only 29 (88%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 9 (31%),
working towards 0 (0%) and not meeting 20 (69%) of the applicable indicators as seen in Figure 50.
Figure 51 outlines the waste indicators by implementation time and level of achievement. There are 4
6-30 | P a g e
indicators in the waste theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable indicators 16 are
short term indicators, 10 are medium-term, and 3 long-range. Of those that are applicable to FRTA they
have met 5 (31%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are working towards or
meeting 3 (30%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators and 1 (33%) of the long-range indicators.
Waste Indicators
31%
0%
Not meeting
69%
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 50: Waste Indicators Level of Attainment
Waste Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
Working Towards
2020
Meet
Figure 51: Waste Indicators Attainment by Year
6-31 | P a g e
Table 14: Waste Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Achieve Zero Solid Waste Disposal
Objective: Increase the diversion rate of office waste
Indicator
Contribution
Zero waste plan developed for MassDOT
No
Full "single stream" recycling provided at all buildings
Yes
All electronics, cartridges, batteries, + accessories recycled
Employee education program on recycling + waste reduction
underway
15% reduction in solid waste from offices achieved
Office building composting or biomass heating piloted at two
facilities
Waste reduction / recycling program emphasized in all janitorial
service contracts
30% reduction in solid waste disposal achieved
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Objective: Eliminate litter accumulation in ROWs + stations
Indicator
Contribution
Litter control programs initiated in all corridors
Litter prevention information provided at all rest areas +
stations
No
No
Objective: Provide "full-stream" recycling opportunities at all customer facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Container + paper recycling installed at all rest area, airports,
transit stations + RMV branches
Mobile electronics + license plate recycling drop off provided at
key locations
Yes
No
Objective: Decrease amount of waste generation during construction + maintenance
Indicator
Contribution
Waste management plans developed for all construction
projects
At least 65% of construction debris is reused or recycled
No
At least 80% of construction debris is reused or recycled
At least 90% of landscaping waste material is reused or
composted
No
No
No
Objective: Decrease paper use
Indicator
Contribution
Paperless office procedures and equipment piloted in all offices
No
Paper use is cut in half
No
A paper-free office program adopted + implemented
Other paper products consumption (paper towels, napkins, etc.)
reduced in all facilities
No
Yes
6-32 | P a g e
Goal 2: Reduce all Exposure to Hazardous Waste
Objective: Implement Environmental Management System
Indicator
Contribution
EMS systems adopted + implemented for all divisions
All waste is managed in compliance with a hazardous waste
management plan
Metrics of recycling + disposals reported from all sites
EMS data from all Divisions compiled annually into a central
performance management system
Best management practices for salt and sand storage in place at
all depot facilities
No
Not Applicable - We don't have a hazardous waste
management plan
No
No
Yes
Objective: Comply with waste ban + eliminate on-site storage
Indicator
Contribution
100% compliance with state waste bans met at office +
maintenance facilities
Long-term storage of hazardous waste minimized
No
Yes
Objective: Increase recycling rate of hazardous materials
Contribution
Refrigerants with high global warming potential from HVAC +
refrigerators recycled
80% of all hazardous waste generated is recycled where
possible
100% of hazardous waste with recycling potential is diverted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Objective: Evaluate + remediate brownfield sites
Indicator
Contribution
An assessment of all brownfield properties is completed
Remediation / redevelopment of at least four properties
underway
Remediation / redevelopment at all known brownfield sites
initiated
Not Applicable - no brownfields
6.27 Water
Water goals look to use less water and improve water systems. Many of these are not applicable as
there is no open water flow on any of the properties. Where possible water has been conserved, such as
with recycling rain water to wash the vehicles. FRTA is also working hard to reduce storm water runoff
and non-point pollutant discharge.
There are 46 indicators for water but only 27 (59%) are applicable to FRTA. FRTA is meeting 9 (33%),
working towards 0 (0%) and not meeting 18 (67%) of the applicable water indicators as seen in Figure
52. Figure 39Figure 53 outlines the water indicators by implementation time and level of achievement.
6-33 | P a g e
There are 19 indicators in the water theme which are not applicable to FRTA. For the applicable
indicators 13 are short term indicators, 10 are medium-term, and 4 long-range. Of those that are
applicable to FRTA they have met 5 (38%) of the immediate implementation (2013) indicators, and are
working towards or meeting 3 (30%) of the medium-term (2015) indicators and 1 (25%) of the longrange indicators.
Water Indicators
33%
67%
0%
Not meeting
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 52: Water Indicators Level of Attainment
6-34 | P a g e
Water Indicators by Year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2013
Not meeting
2015
2020
Working Towards
Meet
Figure 53: Water Indicators Attainment by Year
Table 15: Water Goal Achievement
Goal 1: Use Less Water
Objective: Decrease potable water use in buildings
Indicator
Contribution
The efficiency of all water fixtures in buildings evaluated
Yes
Fixtures retrofitted to gain a 10% reduction in water use
Not Applicable
Plumbing system retrofitted to gain 20% reduction in water use
Not Applicable
Objective: Decrease water use for irrigation
Indicator
Contribution
Water conservation integrated into vegetation management
plans
Potable water use for irrigation reduced by 25%
Not Applicable - We don't have vegetation
management plans
Not Applicable
Objective: Increase utilization of recycled water + rainwater
Indicator
Contribution
Water conservation practices at bus, vehicle, or airplane
washing facilities required
All new vehicle/bus/rail vehicle washing facilities designed and
built with recycled water technologies
All existing vehicle washing facilities evaluated for recycled or
recaptured rain water alternatives
Study of rooftop rainwater use for toilets / HVAC of largest
office facilities completed
Rain barrels or other means to reuse rainwater + disconnect
drain spouts from sewage systems installed
No
Not Applicable - No new facility
No
No
No
6-35 | P a g e
Objective: Install innovative dual plumbing water systems in facilities
Indicator
Contribution
Water use innovations required in all new building proposals
Three new pilot structures or building retrofits utilizing dual
plumbing completed
No
No
Goal 2: Improve Ecological Function of Water Systems
Objective: Minimize impacts + enhance wetlands + impaired waters
Indicator
Contribution
Preservation + enhancement of wetlands is adopted in design
instead of replacement
Environmental benefits of impact mitigation through watershed
planning improved
Natural buffers between wetland resources + transportation
infrastructure increased whenever possible
Alternative deicer agents utilized in areas with wetlands, cold
water fisheries, and water supplies
Five wetland restoration projects not considered mitigation
completed
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Objective: Adapt facilities for climate change resilience
Indicator
Contribution
Climate change adaptation strategies initiated between local
and federal parties
Revised extreme precipitation data utilized for rainfall, flood
flow + storm water calculations
Climate Adaptation Plan applicable to all MassDOT facilities
adopted
Statewide climate change vulnerability assessment for
MassDOT facilities completed
Critical roadway or rail segments targeted for culvert
replacement + rearming for scour protection
Fish passage structures which meet state crossing standards
included in maintenance activities
All reconstruction projects crossing tidal habitats include
measures to eliminate tidal flow restrictions
No
No
No
Not Applicable - limited roadway
Not Applicable - no open waters
Not Applicable - not near tidal water
6-36 | P a g e
Objective: Minimize impacts of ROWs + bridges on fluvial processes
Contribution
New roadways + bridges designed to maximize natural fluvial
processes including tidal flushing
At minimum 12 bridge replacement projects improving water
flow under construction or completed
All railroad bed reconstruction projects retrofitted with
enhanced stream crossing standards
The standards within MA Stream Crossing Handbook utilized in
all project development processes
A minimum of five culverts redesigned + rebuilt for improved
fish migration
All projects crossing tidal habitats evaluated for restriction of
tidal flow
Not Applicable - no new paved roads since 2010
Not Applicable - no open water flow
Not Applicable
Not Applicable - no culverts
Not Applicable - not near tidal waters
Objective: Reduce storm water volumes + increase permeable surface areas
Indicator
Contribution
Environmentally sensitive site design in new construction
projects utilized
Post peak discharge rates held to less than pre-project
discharge rates to the maximum extent possible
All projects designed to remove solids + pollutants to the
maximum extent possible
All projects designed to include measures to increase infiltration
+ reduce storm water volumes
Permeable paving or other infiltration installations included in
parking lot resurfacing projects
Design charrette conducted for creating "green roof" bus
shelters for the MBTA and/or major RTA
Green roof installed on at least one large bus or rail
maintenance garage
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
6-37 | P a g e
Objective: Decrease non-point source pollutant discharges
Indicator
Contribution
All structural best management practices inspected annually +
cleaned as necessary
Illicit discharges from MassDOT structures eliminated upon
detection
Long-term pollution prevention programs implemented at all
maintenance sites
Environmentally sensitive design / Low Impact Design (LID)
utilized in all construction projects
New best management practices installed at all facilities
identified by Impaired Waters Program
Phytotechnology as part of storm water evaluation +
constructed storm water controls utilized
Assessment protocol developed to evaluate water quality
functions of roadside vegetation
Storm water 'Low Impact Design' integrated into revised Project
Development + Design Guide
Commuter ferries follow best practices for fuel handling, bilge
water, sanitary waste + trash disposal
Not Applicable
No
Yes
No
No
No
Not Applicable - Do not operate ferries
6.2 Conclusion
With over 300 indicators, as identified in the GreenDOT policy 72% are applicable to FRTA. They are
working continuously to achieve the indicators and have achieved many indicators ahead of schedule.
Some of the indicators which are applicable are joint responsibilities of FRTA and either MassDOT, the
planning commission or the town and they must work collaboratively to achieve success. Additionally
many of the indicators just do not apply because they are specific to the MBTA; rail; require that there
has been or will be new construction; they are for MassDOT owned facilities, or they are for
environmentally sensitive land areas.
6-38 | P a g e
Recommendations
Burke & Company
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Introduction
diverse steering committee, operational input from FRTA, and analysis of existing transit service and the
local/regional market. Strategies to improve the system were developed based on the goals and
objectives outlined at the beginning of the plan. The recommendations are intended to better align
service with local and regional demand using a three phase process that will serve to strengthen the
system and attract more riders. A phased approach was used in order to establish the immediacy and
prioritization of needs and was based on an incremental approach and available resources.
•
•
•
Phase 1 – implement some elements immediately and as resources and funding are available
Phase 2 - implement as resources and funding are available
Phase 3 - implement as resources and funding are available
To be able to evaluate whether or not transit services are meeting system goals and objectives, an
effective monitoring program should first be in place. A service monitoring program is important both in
terms of gauging whether the goals of the community are being accomplished with the service and that
the service is both effective and efficient. Without specific measures, success is difficult to measure from
year to year. Service monitoring should be part of the daily operation based on specific data collection
procedures. Data collection is essential to evaluating the service performance and to determining if
changes should be made in the service delivery. To assist in developing a service monitoring program,
recommended service guidelines and performance measures have been developed.
7.2 Strategies for Service Recommendation
For transportation planning purposes, a goal is defined as a purpose or need that should be attained to
address a transportation issue. An objective is a specific, measurable method or activity that is designed
to achieve the identified goal. The goals and objectives were developed at the onset of the planning
process with FRTA and have guided the development of the plan throughout.
Objective 1.a: Expand weekday hours
Objective 1.b: Implement weekend service
Objective 1.c: Increase frequency on highly productive corridors
Objective 1.d: Improve transit access for the public
Objective 1.e: Create a travel training program to perform in-person assessments for your disabled
population and to help transition paratransit riders onto the fixed-route system
7-1 | P a g e
Objective 2.a: Improve the productivity of routes
Objective 2.b: Increase service area commensurate with growing demand and need within the region
Objective 2.c: Design routes to improve on-time performance and minimize dwell time
Goal #3: Promote the transit service
Objective 3.a: Work with local employers, educational institutions, and medical facilities to promote the
use of the transit system, leaving educational and promotional materials with them
Objective 3.b: Participate in marketing and promotion of services, including coordinating with other
organizations
Objective 3.c: Educate the public on the benefits of transit
Aside from the goals and objectives several other strategies/guiding principle were used in designing
recommendations:
8. Simplify – Routes should be designed along main corridors with minimal schedule
deviations. For routes that are not linear, service should be provided in both directions.
9. Service should match demand – The denser (both in terms of employment and
population) areas should have a higher level of service with either higher frequency
routes or multiple lower frequency routes. Major corridors often warrant higher
frequencies.
10. Standardized frequency – Frequencies should be standardized using clock-face
schedules to create 30, 60 and 120 minute headways.
11. Priority to existing ridership – Service should be increased in areas that warrant it over
servicing new areas if limited resources are available.
12. Connections – No route should be designed in isolation. If possible it should connect to
at least one hub. Where connections to hubs are not possible the route should connect
with at least one other route to facilitate transfers.
13. Efficiency – Where possible routes should be designed to be the most efficient.
Decisions to deviate off the main corridor and add time to the route are only warranted
where key destinations like shopping centers are too far off the main road, there are a
lack of pedestrian facilities or the benefit (due to demand) of servicing the deviation
outweighs the additional time incurred to others on the route.
14. Consistency – Except where warranted by peak only routes or increased peak hour
service, service should have consistent headways throughout the day using clock-face
schedules.
15. Regional network – Regional connections should be improved to provide access outside
of the FRTA service area through timed transfers with other systems such as PVTA or
7-2 | P a g e
MART, to areas identified as common destinations through the market analysis and
public outreach process.
7.3 Recommendations Overview
Recommendations are categorized by route and phase. A three phase process was used in order
prioritize recommendations. Priority was based on demand, route performance, public feedback and
resource availability. In Phase 1 frequencies have been standardized, alignments have been adjusted,
schedules have been adjusted to improve transfers with PVTA and MART, and evening service has been
implemented. In Phase 2 Saturday service has been added, and new services have been implemented.
In Phase 3 service has been expanded to Sunday. The timeframe for each phase is based on available
capital and operating resources. In general Phase 1 can be implemented immediately if funding
resources become available through changes being made to existing service and as other resources
become available as it does not require an increase in the current fleet size, but Phase 2 and Phase 3 can
only be implemented as resources and capital equipment become available.
Phase 1:
• Split the Route 21 into two routes (21, 25/62) and improve frequency of service
• Combine the Route 22 and Route 32 into one route
• Extend weekday service to 7:30 PM
• Improve connections and transfers with PVTA and MART
Phase 2:
• Implement Saturday service
• Split the Route 25/62 into two routes and improve frequency
• Peak hour express bus to Northampton via I-91, stops at the Whately Park and Ride
• Examine implementing holiday service
Phase 3
• Sunday service
• Establish all day express service to Northampton, end the Route 31 at Walmart in Northampton
A summary of the overall recommendations is in Table 16 and Table 17 breaks down the
recommendations by phase. Figure 54-Figure 55 are maps depicting system wide alignment changes for
each phase of the plan. For detailed individual route recommendation profiles see section 7.7
7-3 | P a g e
Table 16: Service Recommendations
FRTA Proposed Service Recommendations
Route
Name
Proposed Changes
Alignment Changes
Current
Productivity
Ridership
(Riders/Hr)
Existing
Proposed
Sunday
Proposed
Proposed
Span
Frequency
Span
Frequency
Span
Frequency
Span
6:15am 6:00pm
30
6:00am 7:30pm
60
8:00am6:00pm
60
8:00am6:00pm
4
trips/day
6:30am 5:05pm
120 min
in phase 1
&2
90 in
phase 3
6:25am 7:25pm
120
8:00am
6:00pm
120
8:00am 6:00pm
120
8:00am
6:00pm
120
8:00am 6:00pm
60
9:00am5:00pm
60
9:00am5:00pm
21
22
Discontinue, combine with
32
23
Additional Trips
Northampton –
Greenfield
Regular schedule for
better connections,
schedule to improve
transfers between PVTA P31, B-43, B-48 & G-46 and
FRTA.
Terminate at Walmart when 91E
gets established as all day service
122
11.1
6 trips/day
5:15am 6:15pm
32
Improve frequencies, shift
scheduled times to meet
with MART in Orange
Add service to Industrial Center
(fixed route deviation - peak, oncall off-peak) previously served by
Route 22 on select trips
96
6.3
7 trips/day
5:00am 6:23pm
60
5:00am 7:30 pm
41
Charlemont –
Greenfield
Remove school deviation
to Mohawk Regional
during summer
Streamline routing
32
4.4
4 trips/day
6:45am 5:35pm
4
trips/day
6:45am 5:35pm
60
7:40am5:40pm
Reroute to Sunderland via MA-47
to connect with PVTA
Saturday
Frequency
Split into three routes: 21,
25, 62. Add weekend
service on new Greenfield
Circulator
31
Realign to remove some
deviations, shift service to GCC and
Corporate Center on separate
routes.
Weekday
112
10.6
9 trips/day, 4
clockwise, 5
counterclockwise
98
13.0
8 trips/day
11
2.7
2 trips/day
6:15am 6:30pm
6:45am 4:10pm
25
GCC Shuttle
New route
Run from Transit Center, Main,
Colrain St, College Dr., GCC,
College, Colrain Rd, Mohawk Trail,
Big Y, Mohawk Trail, Main
62
Corporate Center
Shuttle
Publicize route; number
with new system map
Run from Transit Center, Main,
Newton, Fairview St W, Munson,
Wisdom Way, Mill St
30 peak,
60 offpeak
7:30am 5:30pm
91E
Northampton –
Greenfield Express
New route
Express service from JWO Transit
Center to Northampton via I-91,
stops at Whately P&R
60
7:40am5:40pm
7-4 | P a g e
Table 17: Recommendations by Phase
Bus Route
Route 21 Greenfield Community Route
Proposed Changes
Yes
Alignment
Current route split into three routes: 21, 25,
62. Shift service to GCC and Corporate
Center on separate routes, bidirectional
service.
Schedule
-60/30 minute bidirectional service
-Extend weekday service to 7:30 PM
-New weekend service
Phase 1
-Split into three routes
-60 minute frequency
bidirectional
-Extend service to 7:30 PM
Phase 2
-Saturday service
Phase 3
-Sunday Service
-30 minute
frequency weekday
service
Route 22 Montague/Greenfield
Route 23 Amherst/Greenfield
Yes
Yes
-No service
-2 daily trips added
-Eliminate route
-New alignment
-Add trips
Route 31 Greenfield/Northampton
Yes
Discontinue, combine with 32
Reroute to Sunderland via RT-47, terminate
at Sugarloaf apartments to transfer with the
PVTA P-31
Terminate at Walmart in Northampton
(weekdays only) when the 91E is established
as an all day service
-120/90 minute frequency
-Service span 6:25 AM to 7:25 PM
-Time route to maximize transfers with the
PVTA G-46
-Service span
-Time route to maximize
transfers with the PVTA G46
-Saturday service
-Adjust schedule times to
meet MART
-Add service to Industrial
Blvd.
-60 Minute Frequency
-Saturday service
-Sunday Service
-Adjust alignment to
terminate at the
Northampton
Walmart
-90 minute
frequency
-Sunday Service
Route 32 Orange/Greenfield
Yes
Service Industrial Blvd. on peak hour trips
only
-Adjust schedule times to meet MART
Route 41 Charlemont/Greenfield
Yes
Streamline routing; Service Mohawk regional
HS on select trips when school is in session
only
Route 25/62 Combined
Yes
New Route Combines the 62 and 25
-Service span 7:40 AM-5:40 PM
-Discontinue
combined service
in favor of
separate routes
-Implement service
Route 62 Corporate Center Shuttle
Yes
New Route - Run from Transit Center, Main,
Newton, Fairview St W, Munson, Wisdom
Way, Mill St
-60 peak/120 off-peak frequencies
-Improve frequency
Route 25 GCC Shuttle
Yes
Colrain St, College Dr., GCC, College, Colrain
Rd, Mohawk Trail, Big Y, Mohawk Trail, Main
Route 91E Northampton - Greenfield Express
Yes
New route - Express service from JWO
Transit Center to Northampton via I-91,
- Weekday 60 min frequency 7:40 AM-5:40
PM
- Saturday 60 min frequency 9 AM – 5 PM
- Sunday 60 min frequency 9 AM – 5 PM
-Streamline route, Service
Mohawk HS in session only
-Implement combined
service
-Implement service
weekday and
Saturday
-Sunday service
-Implement service
during peak hours
only
-60 minute
frequency
7:40 AM to 5:40 PM
span
7-5 | P a g e
Figure 54: Phase 1
7-6 | P a g e
Figure 55: Phase 2 & 3
7-7 | P a g e
7.4 Cost Estimation
7.41 Operating Costs
Operating costs are based on the average cost per hour of $109.5 and incorporate all of the
recommendations for each route and phase. The cost can be adjusted by implementing some but all not
recommendations or interlining routes to improve efficiency; therefore the final costs may differ slightly
from what is proposed. Figure 56 charts the total operational cost for the existing system and the
additional costs associated with the service improvements in each phase. For a breakdown of the
cost/savings for each route and phase see the recommendation profiles in section 7.7.
Cost by Phase
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Base cost
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Base cost
Existing
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
0
$682,000
$420,000
$1,133,000
$1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,882,000 $2,302,000
Figure 56: Cost by Phase
7.42 Capital Costs
Capital costs include vehicle and infrastructure costs. In Phase 1 the primary constraint was based on the
number of vehicles required in peak service. FRTA currently has a fleet of seven buses and 10 mini buses
to provide fixed route service for a total of 17 vehicles. In peak service there are currently 8 vehicles in
use, Phase 1 was designed with this constraint (Figure 57). Future phases will require additional vehicles
and the procurement process can take up to two years from the time the process begins until the
vehicles are delivered and put into service. FRTA must begin to plan now for future expansion of the
fleet. With the expansion of the fleet, this may require a new or additional facility; the current one is at
capacity and outdoor storage space is limited.
7-8 | P a g e
Peak Fleet Requirements
14
12
13
Vehiclers
10
8
6
11
8
8
Existing
Phase 3
4
2
0
Phase 2
Phase 3
Figure 57: Fleet Requirements by Phase
7.5 Recommended Service Guidelines
In order to establish service guidelines in the pursuit of establishing a monitoring program in the future,
service must first be monitored and data collected. Routes should be defined by the function they
service in order to accurately measure the health of a route. Four types of routes are recommended for
FRTA: (1) local, (2) rural, (3) express route, and (4) service route. Each route type will have in turn
different performance measures to monitor existing service and evaluate new service. Table 18 provides
an overview of the suggested route type and pairing for existing and recommended FRTA routes.
Local Routes – These are routes that service densely populated areas. They typically begin and
end in an urban center and stop at all locations along the way.
Rural Routes- These routes typically operate a few trips a day and originate in an urban area but
the majority of the route is operated in rural areas. They typically exhibit higher operating
speeds, longer trips and do not run on a consistent headway.
Express Routes – Express routes are designed to provide faster, direct service for commuters
and have limited stops. They typically operate on weekdays only during peak periods.
Service Routes – Service routes are designed to meet the needs of a specific group. They
typically have lower ridership and sporadic trip times based on the schedule of the group in
question. They can be partially funded by a group. Examples may include school tripper routes,
commuter rail connectors, school/college shuttles, or work shuttles.
7-9 | P a g e
Table 18: FRTA Route Types
Route Type
Local
Rural
Express
Service
Routes
21, 31, 32, 62, 25
41
91E
23
Categories of data to be collected and used in the monitoring program include the following, which are
discussed in detail below:
•
•
•
•
•
Ridership
On-time performance
Financial
Service coverage
Service levels – span and frequency
Passenger boarding data should be collected continually on a time-specific basis. There is a trade-off
between data collection efforts and the value of information. It is just as easy to collect too much data
as it is to collect insufficient data. Passenger boardings should be recorded daily by route, fare category,
and by trip; this information can often be generated through farebox reports. One goal all transit
agencies should strive to reach is the implementation of Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs). APCs
include capabilities such as recording each passenger by fare category as they board. This function
should be programmed into the software as it is implemented. However, even without the benefit of
APCs, passenger data can still be collected and recorded by drivers for numerous variables.
With any transit system, it is important to monitor on-time performance. An on-time performance goal
should be established (e.g. an attainable on-time goal of 95 percent may be considered). Minor
adjustments to routes may be needed to ensure that schedule and headway adherence can be
maintained. If automatic vehicle location (AVL) software is not available to track on-time performance,
drivers should report actual arrival and departure times at designated bus stops along the routes and at
major stops. It should be emphasized that drivers should not leave prior to a scheduled stop time to
make up time along a route. Leaving early could cause riders to miss a bus. The dispatcher should then
record this information so that the number of trips running late can be determined.
Financial data are required to evaluate performance measures such as the operating cost per hour of
service and the cost per passenger-trip. Financial monitoring should continue as part of the performance
monitoring program. Important data to collect and report include operating revenue by source, farebox
revenue by fare category, maintenance costs, gas and oil expenditures, employee-related costs
(including salary and benefits), and the cost of extending the hours that the JWO will be open.
7-10 | P a g e
Service coverage should be based on demand as the area has a wide range of employment and
population density. Before service is expanded to new areas or frequencies increased, density
thresholds should be examined (Table 19).
Table 19: Service Thresholds
Jobs & Population per Square mile
<2,000
2,000-3,000
3,001-6,500
6,501-16,000
16,001-250,000
250,001+
Fixed-Route Headway
No service
120 min or peak only
60 Min
30 Min
15 Min
5 Min
It is also important to establish minimum levels of service for each route type. These include service
span and frequency. Table 20 below outlines suggested minimum service spans (or number of trips) for
each route type. Service can begin earlier or end later if demand warrants. Adjustments to the times can
also be made based on the hours of centers served and the passengers needs but should be within the
financial capacity of FRTA.
Table 20: Minimum Service Spans
Local Routes
Weekday 6:30 AM – 6:30 PM
Saturday
Sunday
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Rural Routes
7:00 AM - 5:00 PM
-
Express Routes
6:00 AM– 9:00 AM,
3:00 PM – 6:00 PM
-
Service Routes
Varies with need
-
Frequency often has a direct correlation with ridership; higher levels are more attractive to riders but
cost more to operate; therefore it is critical to establish frequencies that are high enough to attract
riders but not so high that the subsidy is greater than the need. Higher frequency routes require more
vehicles and drivers. Clock-face schedules should be used except for under unique circumstances. These
circumstances can include trips that are: designed to meet work shifts or school bell times; that include
clock-face schedules that would require excessive recovery time (inefficient service); or that disallow
interlining with other routes or miss key transfers. Minimum service frequencies are presented in Table
21 and should correlate to service thresholds established in Table 19. These frequencies represent
minimums based on the service spans in Table 20 but can have variations throughout the day such as
added service during the peak hours or reduced service at night.
7-11 | P a g e
Table 21: Minimum frequencies
Route Type
Local
Rural
Express
Service
Frequency
60 Minutes
120 Minutes
2 trips/day
2 trips/day
7.51 New Service Warrants
FRTA often receives requests for new service; new service warrants will help FRTA evaluate proposals
and determine service levels. Section 7.63 outlines how to monitor and measure new services. The
development of the new services should follow the new service warrants and after 2 years be able to
meet or exceed the performance measures outlined in Section 7.63.
When analyzing new service requests and proposals the following should be considered:
•
•
•
Area coverage – When service is proposed the new route should be evaluated for its ability to
connect to other routes, meet service thresholds, and operate cost effectively. Routes extend
the service area may have a demand but the increased miles/hours may cause the subsidy to be
greater than those recommended in the performance measures.
Transit dependent populations – The presence of transit dependent populations should be
considered when evaluating new service proposals. If there is a high but remote transit
dependent population, alternative service types might be warranted.
Special markets – New service is often proposed for special markets such as a new shopping
center, university campus, or employment center. These markets often produce demand but
the cost to service them can be high and ridership potential undetermined. FRTA should work
with these destinations to secure some dedicated funding which can help bring down the cost of
the route.
7.6 Performance Measures
Performance measures serve as a guide to evaluate the success of a transit service. Performance
measures include the types of data to be collected and give the tools necessary to identify transit system
opportunities and deficiencies. Performance measures should:
•
•
•
•
•
Be easily measurable
Have a clear and intuitive meaning so that it is understandable to those who will use it and to
non-transportation professionals
Be acceptable and useful to transportation professionals
Be comparable across time and between geographical areas
Have a strong functional relationship to actual system operations so that once changes occur in
service operations, changes to the system can readily be determined
7-12 | P a g e
•
•
•
Provide the most cost-effective means of data collection
Where appropriate, be based on statistically sound measurement techniques
Be consistent with measures identified for other systems
Recommended performance measures to monitor existing and future routes could include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passengers/Hour: Number of total monthly and annual passengers divided by the corresponding
revenue-hours.
Subsidy/Passenger: Total expenses minus fare revenue divided by ridership.
Farebox Recovery: The percentage of operating costs covered by fares collected, calculated by
the fares collected divided by the cost to operate the route.
Cost/Revenue-Hour: An excellent indicator of efficiency is cost per revenue-hour of service.
Costs per hour should be analyzed by route and compared to overall system averages.
Late Trips: The percentage of fixed-route trips which operate late or are missed should be
recorded and reported. The recommended standard for late trips is any trip that is more than
five minutes behind schedule.
Service/Road Calls: the number of service/road calls divided by the number of revenue miles.
This measure is typically measured for the entire system and not individual routes. This
monitors routine maintenance and vehicle performance.
Accidents/100,000 miles: Measure of driver safety. There must be a standard practice for
defining what an accident is.
7.61 Service Benchmarks
The aforementioned performance measures can be used to create benchmarks for service operation.
The benchmarks will help FRTA track progress and set goals for the performance of the route. These
benchmarks should be seen as short-term goals that should be re-evaluated at set intervals—at least
every five years—to ensure that the expectations for the route are consistently evolving. If a specific
benchmark has been greatly exceeded during the first two years of operation, the criteria should be
changed to provide a progressive target for the service. The following benchmarks were determined by
the base type of service, national best standards and the current performance.
Passengers per Hour
Passengers per hour measures ridership as a function of the amount of service provided and will vary
based on the type of route. Table 22 outlines the threshold for route/service types which can be used to
monitor the route. As system-wide service improves these values should be adjusted to reflect the
change and reevaluated every 3-5 years. They are based on current performance and best practices. If
routes are performing at 75% or below of the benchmark then the route may need to be evaluated to
determine remedies to improve performance.
7-13 | P a g e
Table 22: Passenger per Hour
Route Type
Local
Rural
Express
Service
Passengers per Hour
10
8
10 per trip
5
Subsidy per passenger measures the cost of providing service, taking into account fare revenue
collected. As with passengers per hour, as system-wide service improves these values should be
adjusted to reflect improvements and should be reevaluated every 3-5 years. FRTA should strive to have
a subsidy per passenger less than $8 on all routes. If subsidies are more than 50% higher than the
benchmark and the route does not have a dedicated source of funding, then the route may need to be
evaluated to determine remedies to improve performance.
Farebox Recovery
Farebox recovery ratios are typically low for rural transit systems such as FRTA. FRTA should strive to
meet or exceed the average farebox recovery ratio outlined in the Rural National Transit Database of 8%
on all routes. If the ratio drops on a route to below 5% (the average recovery ratio for other rural
agencies in FTA Region 1) then the route may need to be evaluated to determine remedies to improve
performance.
Cost per Revenue Hour
Cost per revenue hour by route should be related to the average of the system so that it can change as
service is added or subtracted or funding sources change. Table 23 provides a guideline for monitoring
this benchmark.
Table 23: Cost per Hour Performance Standard Criteria
Performance
Very Low
Low
Average
High
Percentage of Average
0%-50%
51%- 75%
75%-150%
150%+
Action
Immediate action
Subject to review
No action needed
Evaluate for service improvements
For those routes performing under 50% immediate actions are listed in section 7.62. Routes falling
within the 50%-75% range are routes that are candidates for monitoring service. Routes falling within
the 75%-150% range are routes that are performing well and require no action. 150%+ routes indicate
high performing routes which may benefit from increased service.
Late Trips
Late trips measure on-time performance and help evaluate a vehicle’s adherence to a schedule. A trip is
considered on-time if it departs a timepoint no more than five minutes late; no trips should leave early.
7-14 | P a g e
The recommended best practice for on-time performance nationwide is 95%; FRTA should strive to
meet this benchmark.
Service/Road Calls
Vehicle breakdowns are inevitable. This measure tracks the distance traveled between mechanical
breakdowns. Although frequent occurrences can create disruptions in a transit system, it is important to
track the frequency and type of mechanical failures of each vehicle in addition to monitoring a fleet’s
age. Monitoring of vehicle breakdowns is one method of reducing system disruptions and may allow an
agency to improve monitoring of vehicle replacement schedules and preventative maintenance
practices. Data collection efforts should include date, time of day, type of failure, age of vehicle, vehicle
number, vehicle mileage, and how the situation was rectified. Monitoring of these items will allow FRTA
to recognize patterns in repeated types of mechanical breakdowns; breakdowns related to vehicle type,
age or mileage; and assist with preventative maintenance programs. Wheelchair lift failures should also
be monitored. FRTA should strive for 20,000 miles between road calls.
Accidents per 100,000 Miles
The FTA suggests that at a minimum transit providers strive towards the goal of six accidents or less per
100,000 miles. FRTA should seek to exceed that minimum with no more than three (3) accidents per
100,000 miles. The measure can be calculated by dividing the number miles by the number of accidents
in a given time period. Values lower than 33,333 indicate that the indicator is not being met.
7.62 Action for Low Performing Routes
If routes are not meeting at least two out of the three main indicators (passenger per hour, subsidy per
passenger, farebox recovery) or fall below the minimum suggested values (5% farebox recovery, $12
subsidy per passenger, 75% of the passenger per hour by service type or “very low” performance score
for cost per hour), they should be evaluated for possible modification. The following actions may help
improve route performance:
Change service level – Some low performing routes may not warrant increased service
frequency; yet routes with very few trips may not attract riders. High frequency routes that are
low performing should be evaluated for service changes. Low frequency routes can be evaluated
for trip additions to determine if the low performance is related to minimal service. This analysis
should be done in conjunction with outreach to determine if extra trips would garner higher
ridership
Segment identification – A segment level analysis of a route might highlight a portion of the
route that causes the overall poor performance. This segment can be modified to help improve
the overall route.
7-15 | P a g e
Marketing – Marketing can help raise the public awareness of a route. Ridership can be poor
because the public lacks knowledge of the service. A marketing/educational campaign can help
improve performance statistics.
Public outreach – On-board surveys or rider interviews can help gain information about how the
route can be improved.
Span identification – Evaluating the performance at different time periods throughout the day
may help identify time periods or trips that garner very little ridership. For example the last trip
of the day may have very low productivity and bring down the performance of the entire route.
Subsidy reduction – If the subsidy per passenger is high one way to reduce it is to explore cost
sharing partnerships with external funding sources. Examples include schools/colleges, large
housing complexes, shopping centers, and places of employment. Another method is to work
with local employment centers to coordinate the sale of passes with employee incentives.
Discontinuation – Discontinuation is the last option for dealing with a low-performing route and
should only be implemented once other measures have been tried but the route is still under
performing. A whole route or segment can be discontinued. Routes should not be discontinued
until other remedial actions have been tried and the service has been monitored for at least
sixth months and there is still no improvement on the route.
7.63 New Service Performance Evaluation
Once a new route or service has been implemented, it should be monitored for an initial period to
evaluate its performance. At the onset the route may not meet the benchmarks set forth for existing
routes, but as the service becomes more popular it may. New services should be implemented for a
period of at least one year in order to garner ridership and monitor monthly fluctuations. While minor
changes such as timing can be made to the route within the initial period, large changes should be
avoided. On-time data should be checked randomly to ensure that performance remains acceptable; a
new service that has low on-time performance will have a difficult time attracting ridership.
Approximately halfway through the initial period (6 months) a passenger survey of the route should be
conducted to understand the effectiveness of the route. The route should continue to be monitored as a
‘new route’ beyond one year if ridership has had continual growth. Once ridership has plateaued the
route can be evaluated against the aforementioned benchmarks with the other routes.
7.7 Recommendation Profiles
The following route profiles depict the proposed recommendation changes.
7-16 | P a g e
Page intentionally left blank Route 62
Route 62 Proposed Route Alignment Changes in Current Route Alignment Route 62
Route 62 Corporate Center Shu le Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 62 System Average Financials Daily Weekday Ridership 11 78 Farebox Recovery Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Sunday Ridership N/A Weekday passengers/hr Route 62 System Average 3.1% 7.6% Weekday Subsidy per passenger $14.42 $10.93 N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A 6.59 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: N/A Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated N/A M‐F Route Length N/A 4.4 miles This route will be a new route and will run from the Transit Center, Main, Newton, Fairview St W, Munson, Wisdom Way, Route Run—Time N/A 19 min Peak Headway N/A 30 min Off‐Peak Headway N/A 60 min Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F N/A 7:30 AM—5:30 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A Mill St. Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Consolidated 62/25 Annual Change in Revenue Hours ‐300 +790 +263 Phase 2: Annual Change in Revenue Miles ‐8,8720 +10,900 +3,633 ‐Implement Service 60 min peak/120 min off peak headway Es mate Change in Cost ‐$33,000 +$87,000 +$29,000 Addi onal vehicle requirements: ‐1 1 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 3: ‐Implement Service 30 min peak/60 min off peak headway Other Notes: Separa ng this route out will provide increased service to the industrial centers. ADA Impact: There will be no impact to the ADA ser‐
vice as this route is currently covered by the Route 21. Route 25/62
Route 25/62 Proposed Route Alignment Changes in Current Route Alignment Route 25/62
Route 25/62 GCC/Corporate Center Shu le Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 25/62 System Average Financials Route 25/62 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership N/A 78 Farebox Recovery N/A 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger N/A $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr N/A 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: New Route Recommenda ons Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated N/A M‐F Route Length N/A 7.5 New Route combines the 62 and 25, which used to be part of the 21. Route Run—Time N/A 40 min Peak Headway N/A 60 min Off‐Peak Headway N/A 60 min Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F N/A 7:40 AM—5:40 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Implement service Annual Change in Revenue Hours +1,385 ‐1,385 0 Phase 2: Annual Change in Revenue Miles +18,725 ‐18,725 0 ‐Discon nue service Es mate Change in Cost +$149,000 ‐$149,000 0 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 1 ‐1 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 3: ‐None Other Notes: ADA Impact: There will be no impact to the ADA ser‐
vice as this route is currently covered by the Route 21. This route will be implemented with the changes in the route 21. The two routes will operate as one un l they can be broken out into separate routes with the procurement of addi onal vehicles. Route 25
Route 25 GCC Shu le Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 25 System Average Financials Route 25 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership N/A N/A Farebox Recovery N/A 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger N/A $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: New Route Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated N/A Mmon‐Sun Route Length N/A 5.58 miles Route Run—Time N/A 25 min Peak Headway N/A 30 min This route will be a new route. It will run from Transit Center, Main, Colrain St, Col‐
lege Dr., GCC, College, Colrain Rd, Mo‐
hawk Trail, Big Y, Mohawk Trail, and Main. Off‐Peak Headway N/A 30 min Saturday Headway N/A 60 min Sunday Headway N/A 60 min Hours of Opera ons M‐F N/A 7:40 AM—5:40 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A 9:00AM ‐ 5:00 PM Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A 9:00 AM‐ 5:00 PM Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Annual Change in Revenue Hours 0 +1,123 +1,123 Phase 2: Annual Change in Revenue Miles 0 +15,489 +15,489 ‐Implement service 60 min frequency weekday ‐Saturday service Es mate Change in Cost 0 +$123,000 +$123,000 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 1 0 Phase 3: Capital Requirement: Other None ‐Improve frequency 30 min ‐Sunday service Other Notes: ADA Impact: Separa ng this route out will provide increased service to GCC and the shops along Route 2. It should be implemented once an addi onal vehicle can be pro‐
cured. On the weekend it will not service GCC. Phase 1: ‐None There will be impact to the ADA service , weekend service must be added. Route 41
Route 41 Charlemont/Greenfield Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 41 System Average Financials Daily Weekday Ridership 32 78 Farebox Recovery Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Sunday Ridership N/A Weekday passengers/hr Route 41 System Average 5.1% 7.6% Weekday Subsidy per passenger $21.37 $10.93 N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A 4.4 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 5/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F M‐F This route will streamline rou ng . Route Length 47.5 miles 40.8 miles Route Run—Time 115 min 95 min Peak Headway 150 min 150 min Off‐Peak Headway 150 min 150 min Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F 6:45 AM—5:35 PM 6:45 AM—5:35 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Alignment change Annual Change in Revenue Hours ‐269 0 0 Annual Change in Revenue Miles ‐7,250 0 0 Es mate Change in Cost ‐$29,000 0 0 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 0 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 2: ‐None Phase 3: ‐No change ADA Impact: There will no impact. Other Notes: Mohawk Regional High School will be serviced on select trips, when school is in session only. Route 32
Route 32 Orange/Greenfield Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 32 System Average Financials Route 32 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership 96 78 Farebox Recovery 9.8% 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger $9.74 $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr 6.3 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 4/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F M‐Su Route Length 47.8 miles 51.1 miles This route will service Industrial Blvd. on peak hour trips only, elsewise it will ser‐
vice Park Villa in Montague Route Run—Time 120 min 120 min Peak Headway 120 min 60 min Off‐Peak Headway 120 min 60 min Saturday Headway N/A 120 min Sunday Headway N/A 120 min Hours of Opera ons M‐F 5 AM—6:22 PM 5 AM—7:30 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A 8 AM—6 PM Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A 8 AM—6 PM Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Adjust schedule mes to meet MART ‐Add service to Industrial Blvd. ‐Extend service to 7:30 PM ‐60 Minute Frequency Annual Change in Revenue Hours +3,688 +598 +598 Annual Change in Revenue Miles +110,688 +13,286 +13,286 Es mate Change in Cost +$404,000 +$65,000 +$65,000 Phase 2: Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 0 0 ‐Implement Saturday service Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 3: ‐Implement Sunday Service Other Notes: This route will create med transfers with the MART G‐link at the Hannaford’s in Orange. Transfer will be possible on every other trip. ADA Impact: There will be a moderate impact with the addi on of weekend service. Route 31
Route 31 Changes in Current Route Alignment Proposed Route Alignment Route 31
Route 31 Northampton/Greenfield Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 31 System Average Financials Route 31 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership 122 78 Farebox Recovery 12.9% 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger $7.21 $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr 11.1 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 2/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F M‐Su Route Length 47.6 mile 43 mile Route Run—Time 113 min 90 min In Phase 3 (weekdays) the route will end at the Walmart in Northampton with con‐
nec ons to the PVTA R‐44. The 91E will provide service from Greenfield to North‐
ampton. Peak Headway 120 Min 90 Min Off‐Peak Headway 120 Min 120 Min Saturday Headway N/A 120 min Sunday Headway N/A 120 min Hours of Opera ons M‐F 5:15 AM—6:15 PM 6:25 AM—7:25 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A 8 AM—6 PM Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A 8 AM—6 PM This can be used to improve the headway on Route 31 to 90 minutes or service Sugarloaf Estates in Sunderland, increas‐
ing connec ons to UMass. Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐120 minute frequency ‐Service span ‐Time route to maximize transfers with the PVTA G‐46 Annual Change in Revenue Hours +688 +487 +477 Annual Change in Revenue Miles +11,900 +12,376 +8,293 Es mate Change in Cost +$75,000 +$53,000 +$52,000 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 0 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 2: ‐Add Saturday service Phase 3: ‐Add Sunday Service ‐Adjust alignment to terminate at the Northampton Walmart on weekdays ADA Impact: There will be a moderate impact with the addi on of weekend service. Other Notes: The schedule has been designed to establish consistent frequencies and facilitate 4 transfers in Whately/South Deerfield to the G‐46. The last trip will leave Northampton at 5:25 PM. This route will terminate at Walmart in Northampton when the 91E is established as an all day service. Route 23
Route 23 Amherst – Greenfield Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 23 System Average Financials Daily Weekday Ridership 11 78 Farebox Recovery Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Sunday Ridership N/A Weekday passengers/hr Route 23 System Average 9.2% 7.6% Weekday Subsidy per passenger $18.16 $10.93 N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A 2.7 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 6/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F M‐F Route Length 50.4 miles 41.6 miles This route will be rerouted to Sunderland via RT‐47 and terminate at Sugarloaf apartments to transfer with the PVTA P‐
Route Run—Time 125 min 100 min Peak Headway 500 min 150 min Off‐Peak Headway 500 min 150 min Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F 6:45 AM—4:10PM 6 :30AM—5:05 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A 31. Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐New alignment ‐Add trips Annual Change in Revenue Hours +679 0 0 Annual Change in Revenue Miles +16,500 0 0 Es mate Change in Cost +$74,000 0 0 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 0 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 2: ‐None Phase 3: ‐None Other Notes: ADA Impact: There will be minimal impact to ADA ser‐
vice, with the increase in trips. This will improve service to UMass with the addi on of trips. The trips will be med to arrive at Sugarloaf Apartments at 7:30 AM, 9:15 AM 3:00 PM and 5:35 in order to maximize transfers based on the P‐31 reduced service schedule and university class schedule. The P‐31, when school is in session, runs every 15 minutes. The P‐31 is free to five college students, staff and faculty. We recommend renaming this route to UMass Connector. Route 22
Route 22 Route 22
Route 22 Montague/Greenfield Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 22 System Average Financials Route 22 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership 98 78 Farebox Recovery 8.7% 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger $6.67 $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr 13.0 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 1/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F Combined with 32 This route has been discon nued and will be combined with Route 32. Route Length 18.3 mile N/A Route Run—Time 52 min N/A Peak Headway 60 min N/A Off‐Peak Headway varies N/A Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F 6:15 AM—6:30 PM N/A Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Eliminate Route Annual Change in Revenue Hours ‐1,833 0 0 Annual Change in Revenue Miles ‐44,900 0 0 Es mate Change in Cost ‐$201,000 0 0 Addi onal vehicle requirements: ‐1 0 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 2: ‐None Phase 3: ‐None Other Notes: ADA Impact: There will be no impact as this route du‐
plicates other routes. While a strong performer this route parallels Route 32; by elimina ng this route service can be increased on the 32. There would be the same number of trips between Turners Falls and Greenfield but the headway would be consistent, im‐
proving service. Route 21
Route 21 Greenfield Community Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 21 System Average Financials Route 21 System Average Daily Weekday Ridership 112 78 Farebox Recovery 5.3% 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger $8.89 $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr 10.6 8.5 Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Fixed Route Route Ranking: 3/6 Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated M‐F M‐Su Route Length 17.2 mile 9.7 mile Route Run—Time 75 min 60 min This route has been split into three routes that meet at the transit center. Its new alignment has been streamlined and ser‐
vice will be bidirec onal. Peak Headway 90 min 30 min Off‐Peak Headway 90 min 30 min Saturday Headway N/A 60 min Sunday Headway N/A 60 min Hours of Opera ons M‐F 6:15 AM—6 PM 6 AM—7:30 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A 8 AM—6 PM Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A 8 AM—6 PM Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Phase 1: Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ‐Split into three routes ‐60 minute frequency bidirec onal ‐Extend service to 7:30 PM Annual Change in Revenue Hours +2,219 +775 +5,760 Annual Change in Revenue Miles +23,840 +5,346 +74,408 Es mate Change in Cost +$243,000 +$85,000 +$631,000 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 1 0 2 Phase 3: Capital Requirement: Other ‐Sunday Service ‐30 minute frequency weekday service Other Notes: Phase 2: ‐Add Saturday service This route will have one vehicle circula ng in each direc on. Service to GCC and the industrial parks will be via separate routes. ADA Impact: There will be a moderate impact with the addi on of weekend service. This recommenda on allows for increased service on the route. Route 91E
Route 91E Route 91E
Route 91E Northampton– Greenfield Express Current Route Performance Produc vity Route 91E System Average Financials Route 91E System Average Daily Weekday Ridership N/A N/A Farebox Recovery N/A 7.6% Saturday Ridership N/A N/A Weekday Subsidy per passenger N/A $10.93 Sunday Ridership N/A N/A Saturday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Weekday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday Subsidy per passenger N/A N/A Saturday passengers/hr N/A N/A Sunday passengers/hr N/A N/A Route Type: Express Route Route Ranking: New Route Proposed Service Changes Current Proposed Route Alignment Changes: Days Operated N/A M‐F Route Length N/A 42.5 miles New route ‐ Express service from John Olver Transit Center to Northampton via I‐
91, stops at Whately P&R. Route Run—Time N/A 85 min Peak Headway N/A 60 min Off‐Peak Headway N/A 60 min Saturday Headway N/A N/A Sunday Headway N/A N/A Hours of Opera ons M‐F N/A 7:40 AM—5:30 PM Hours of Opera on Saturday N/A N/A Hours of Opera on Sunday N/A N/A Environmental Jus ce Policy: Unknown Financial Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Annual Change in Revenue Hours 0 +1,417 +2,125 Phase 2: Annual Change in Revenue Miles 0 +42,500 +63,750 ‐Implement service during peak hours only Es mate Change in Cost 0 +$155,000 +$233,000 Addi onal vehicle requirements: 0 2 0 Capital Requirement: Other None Phase 1: ‐None Phase 3: ‐Implement 60 minute frequency ‐7:40 AM to 5:40 PM span Other Notes: To begin this route will run during the peak hours only. Once service has been established, if ridership con nues to grow , service can be expanded to all day. ADA Impact: Express services do not require comple‐
mentary ADA service. No impact. Chapter 8
Conclusion
Burke & Company
8. CONCLUSION
diverse steering committee, operational input from FRTA, an analysis of existing transit service and the
local/regional market. Strategies to improve the system were developed based on the goals and
objectives outlined in Chapter 2.
The proposed recommendations will help improve mobility in the region, and improve service efficiency.
The three phase approach allows FRTA to plan for future service and seek the necessary funding and
equipment that would be needed. Phase 1 would require a significant increase in funding of 56.8% in
order to add evening service, standardize frequencies, and coordinate transfers with adjoining MART
and PVTA services. This large increase in funding needed is largely due to the small operating budget
FRTA currently has, thus any increase is magnified. Phases 2 and 3 would require more funding (Table
24) and additional vehicles as well. Phase 2 would add Saturday service, improve frequencies, and
express service. Phase 3 would implement Sunday service and increase express service. These
improvements would help FRTA achieve their goals of providing high-quality, customer-oriented service,
providing effective and safe services, and promoting the transit service.
Table 24: Phase Requirements
Phase
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Total
Additional funding
New cost of service Percent increase from previous
needed
$682,000
$1,822,000
56.8%
$420,000
$2,302,000
22.3%
$1,133,000
$3,435,000
46.2%
$2,235,000
N/A
186.3%
Service guidelines have been established to monitor service in the future with performance measures to
evaluate a route’s health. Recommended performance measures to monitor existing and future routes
include:
•
•
•
•
Passengers/Hour: Number of total monthly and annual passengers divided by the corresponding revenue-hours.
Subsidy/Passenger: Total expenses minus fare revenue divided by ridership.
Farebox Recovery: The percentage of operating costs covered by fares collected, calculated by
the fares collected divided by the cost to operate the route.
Cost/Revenue-Hour: An excellent indicator of efficiency is cost per revenue-hour of service.
Costs per hour should be analyzed by route and compared to overall system averages.
8-1 | P a g e
•
•
•
Late Trips: The percentage of fixed-route trips which operate late or are missed should be
recorded and reported. The recommended standard for late trips is any trip that is more than
five minutes behind schedule.
Service/Road Calls: the number of service/road calls divided by the number of revenue miles.
This measure is typically measured for the entire system and not individual routes. This
monitors routine maintenance and vehicle performance.
Accidents/100,000 miles: Measure of driver safety. There must be a standard practice for
defining what an accident is.
The performance measures can be used to create benchmarks for FRTA service operation. These
benchmarks will help FRTA track progress and set goals for the performance of the route. They will also
assist FRTA in measuring the impact of the proposed recommendations on service. The
recommendations include later night service, weekend service, express service, improved frequencies,
and clockface schedules (Table 25).
Table 25: Summary of Recommendations
Bus Route
Route 21 Greenfield
Community Route
Route 22
Montague/Greenfield
Route 23
Amherst/Greenfield
Alignment
Current route split into three
routes: 21, 25, 62. Shift service to
GCC and Corporate Center on
separate routes, bidirectional
service.
Reroute to Sunderland via RT-47,
terminate at Sugarloaf apartments
to transfer with the PVTA P-31
Route 31
Terminate at Walmart in
Greenfield/Northampton Northampton (weekdays only)
when the 91E is established as an
all day service
Route 32
Orange/Greenfield
Service Industrial Blvd. on peak
hour trips only
Route 41
Charlemont/Greenfield
Streamline routing; Service
Mohawk regional HS on select trips
when school is in session only
New Route Combines the 62 and
25
Schedule
-No service
-Time route to maximize transfers
with the PVTA G-46
-Adjust schedule times to meet
MART
8-2 | P a g e
Bus Route
Route 62 Corporate
Center Shuttle
Alignment
New Route - Run from Transit
Center, Main, Newton, Fairview St
W, Munson, Wisdom Way, Mill St
Schedule
New Route - Run from Transit
Center, Main, Colrain St, College
Dr., GCC, College, Colrain Rd,
Mohawk Trail, Big Y, Mohawk Trail,
Main
Route 91E Northampton
- Greenfield Express
New route - Express service from
JWO Transit Center to
Northampton via I-91, stops at
Whately P&R
- Weekday 60 min frequency 7:40
AM-5:40 PM
- Saturday 60 min frequency 9 AM
– 5 PM
- Sunday 60 min frequency 9 AM –
5 PM
8-3 | P a g e
Appendix A
Market Demand Maps
Page intentionally left blank Appendix B
Recommendation Memo
MEMORANDUM
Client:
Project Name:
Issue Date:
To:
From:
Comprehensive Service Assessment
January 21, 2015
Tina Cote and FRTA
Stephen Gazillo, URS Corporation
FRTA Comprehensive Service Assessment – Recommendations
The following outlines the recommendations and alternatives to improve service for FRTA based on the
comments received from the November 2014 workshop. Opportunities were identified to improve
connectivity, streamline service, and add service. A table can be found at the end which outlines all
recommendations by route, additional information and maps have been provided for select routes.
Recommendation Changes, December 2014
Route 21
The current route 21 was split into three routes (21, 25, and 62) in order to provide more direct service,
simplify schedules and add service. Service to the industrial park area, Shopping along Rt 2 and GCC will
be available on routes 25 and 26. The new 21 will operate as a bidirectional community circulator in
Greenfield along major corridors, deviations have been eliminated and a flex system should be explored
in Phase 3 when integration of fixed route and paratransit software is available. Streamlining the service
will allow for the route to operate more frequently.
Information on Flex Routing (Route 21 Greenfield Community Circulator):
• Operates every 60 minutes on new loop through Greenfield with one vehicle circulating in each
direction
• Regular fare for customers boarding along the regular route
• Additional fare for deviations; fare set at twice local fare
• Deviation reservations would need to be made in advance via phone 1 day prior
• Set maximum number of deviations at 1 or 2 per trip to ensure schedule kept
• Can be used to cover ADA service as well
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 3B • Rocky Hill, CT 06067 • (860) 529-8882 • Fax (860) 529-3991
MEMORANDUM
Route 21
Proposed Route
Proposed Route Extension Upcharge
Current Route
Other FRTA routes- Current
Flex Zone
MEMORANDUM
Route 21 – Phase 3
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
MEMORANDUM
Route 22
This route has been eliminated due to redundancy with the route 32. The resources have been
combined with the 32 to improve service along that route.
Route 23
The alignment has changed and the new route will terminate at Sugarloaf Apartments in Sunderland to
allow for transfers to and from the PVTA P-31 which operates on 15 minute headways during full service
and 35 min during reduced. This allows for the addition of 2 trips. The travel time from Greenfield to
UMass with transferring would be 65-80 minutes depending on the wait time for the transfer. In order
to maximize transfers based on the P-31 reduced service schedule and the university class schedule we
recommend the route arrive at Sugarloaf apartments at 7:30 AM, 9:15 AM, 3 PM and 5 PM
Route 23
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
MEMORANDUM
Route 31
We recommend establishing consistent 120 minute frequencies with the schedule designed to maximize
transfers to and from the PVTA G-46 (3 UMass to Greenfield and 1 Greenfield to UMass connections).
Heading to UMass the transfers can be made at the Whately Park and Ride and heading to Greenfield
the transfers can be made in South Deerfield Center. The timing of the schedule will need to be adjusted
so that the first trip leaves at 6:25 from Greenfield which is 50 minutes later than it currently does and
the last trip leaving Northampton at 5:25 would leave 50 minutes earlier than it currently does. We also
recommend keeping Route 31 to Northampton until the express route is introduced, and to phase in
express route as peak only first to gauge ridership demand, then extend to all day if needed and
terminate Route 31 at Walmart in Northampton.
UMass G -46
7:45 AM
1:45 PM
5:40 PM
Greenfield 31
4:25 PM
South Deerfield G-46
8:00 AM
2:00 PM
5:55 PM
Whately 31
4:50 PM
South Deerfield 31
8:05 AM
2:05 PM
6:05 PM
Greenfield 31
8:25 AM
2:25 PM
6:25 PM
Whately G-46
4:55 PM
UMass G -46
5:10 PM
Route 32
Frequency is improved to a consistent 60 minute headway. Service to the industrial center will be on
select peak trips only; during off-peak hours the center will only be served by request. Timing should be
adjusted to meet the MART G-link at the Hannaford’s in Orange. Transfers will be possible on every
other trip.
Hannaford’s
MART
Arrive 0:40
FRTA
Arrive 0:55
Hannaford’s
FRTA
Arrive 0:55
MART
Arrive 0:05
MEMORANDUM
Route 32
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
Route 41
The alignment for this route has been simplified in Greenfield and Shelburne Falls. While there are
weight and height restrictions (10’9” and 12 tons) on the Bridge St bridge in Shelburne Falls the bridge is
not listed as structurally deficient and a typical Mini-bus meets these requirements. The deviation to
Mohawk regional school should be eliminated when school is not in session. In phase 3 extension to
Berkshire East should be explored.
MEMORANDUM
Route 41
Greenfield
Berkshire East – Phase 3
Shelburne Falls
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
MEMORANDUM
Route 25/62 Combination
This route should operate as a combination route until funding can be obtained to procure an additional
vehicle and operate the two routes separately.
Route 25/62
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
MEMORANDUM
Route 62
This route should operate when funding can be obtained to procure an additional vehicle and operate
the two routes separately. At that time the 25/62 can be discontinued.
Route 62
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
Route 25
This route should operate when funding can be obtained to procure an additional vehicle and operate
the two routes separately. At that time the 25/62 can be discontinued.
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
Route 25
MEMORANDUM
Route 91E
The route should be phased as peak only first to gauge ridership demand, then extend to all day if
needed and terminate Route 31 at Walmart in Northampton.
Proposed Route
Current Route
Flex Zone
Route 91E
MEMORANDUM
Other
Southwick and Southampton are too far out from the bus facility to serve with FRTA vehicles; should
coordinate with PVTA or contract with another operator to provide service in these communities. A flex
zone service may work best until travel patterns can be established.
Operational Impacts
Phase
Existing
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Weekday Peak Vehicles
8
8
11
13
14,777
21,084
26,633
36,572
338,864
448,525
554,149
729,310
MEMORANDUM
Bus Route
Proposed Changes
Alignment
Current route split into three routes: 21, 25,
62. Realign to remove some deviations, shift
service to GCC and Corporate Center on
separate routes, bidirectional service. flex on
request for additional fee in later phase
Schedule
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
-Split into three routes
bidirectional
-Saturday service
-Sunday Service
-30 minute
frequency weekday
service
- Flex service
implmented
Route 21 Greenfield Community Route
Yes
Route 22 Montague/Greenfield
Route 23 Amherst/Greenfield
Yes
Yes
Reroute to Sunderland via RT-47, terminate
at Sugarloaf apartments to transfer with the
PVTA P-31
-No service
-Eliminate route
-New alignment
-Add trips
Route 31 Greenfield/Northampton
Yes
Terminate at Walmart in Northampton when
the 91E is established as an all day service
-Time route to maximize transfers with the
PVTA G-46
-Service span
-Time route to maximize
transfers with the PVTA G46
-Saturday service
-Sunday Service
-Adjust alignment to
terminate at the
Northampton
Walmart
Route 32 Orange/Greenfield
Yes
Service Industrial Blvd. on peak hour trips
only
-Adjust schedule times to meet MART
-Adjust schedule times to
meet MART
-Add service to Industrial
Blvd.
-Saturday service
-Sunday Service
Route 41 Charlemont/Greenfield
Yes
Extend to Berkshire East; streamline routing
through Shelburne Falls using the Bridge St
bridge; Service Mohawk regional HS on
select trips when school is in session only
-Streamline route, Service
Mohawk HS in session only
Yes
New Route Combines the 62 and 25
-Implement service
Route 62 Corporate Center Shuttle
Yes
Newton, Fairview St W, Munson, Wisdom
Way, Mill St
-Implement service
Yes
Colrain St, College Dr., GCC, College, Colrain
Rd, Mohawk Trail, Big Y, Mohawk Trail, Main
-Implement service
Route 91E Northampton - Greenfield Express
Yes
New route - Express service from John Olver
Transit Center to Northampton via I-91,
-Implement service
during peak hours
only
-Extend to Berkshire
East
-Discontinue
service
-60 minute
frequency
7:40 AM to 5:40 PM
span
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix C
Public Outreach
PUBLIC OUTREACH
One of the primary goals of the Regional Transit Plan (RTP) was to identify alternatives and
recommendations that would result in improvements to the system for existing riders and potentially
attract new riders. In order to meet the needs of the riders, FRTA reached out to the public through a
series of “Community Conversations” and a survey in order to better understand what the public’s
transit needs and priorities are. The public input received from these efforts helped form the goals of
the Regional Transit Plan, guide the alternative service scenarios to be examined, and prioritize FRTA
service strategies. In addition FRTA formed a Study Advisory Committee. This committee represented
key stakeholder groups within the community and provided review and comment on chapters of the
document as they were produced.
Study Advisory Committee
As dictated by the Transportation Finance Bill, FRTA has formed and supported the development of a
Study Advisory Committee (SAC) to guide the development of this plan. Its members include local
employers and business members, the regional planning agency, labor organizations, transit riders and
others. A complete list of committee members organization/group represented on the SAC can be
found in Table 1 and comments submitted by SAC members can be found at the end of the document.
Table 1 Study Advisory Committee Members
Organization
Franklin Regional Council of Governments
An operator from the Management Company, Franklin Transit Management
Franklin Medical Center/Baystate Health
A management person from Franklin Transit Management
Franklin Hampshire Career Center
Community Action
A transit rider/advocate of public transit/member of our Transit Advisory
Committee
Over the course of the study the committee has met xx times to discuss the development of the plan in
addition to reviewing each chapter and providing feedback. The times, dates and locations of these
meetings can be found in Table 2.
Table 2. Study Advisory Committee Meetings
Date
4/28/2014
10/15/2014
4/6/2015
6/25/2015
Location
JWO Transit Center
JWO Transit Center
JWO Transit Center
JWO Transit Center
1|Page
Public Involvement
For the public outreach effort, the FRTA partnered with the Franklin Regional Council of Governments
(FRCOG) to conduct a series of “Community Conversations.” The timing of FRTA’s Comprehensive
Service Analysis coincides with the FRCOG’s update to its Regional Transportation Plan. The FRCOG
began updating this Plan in the Fall of 2014 and examined all modes of transportation, including transit.
The Comprehensive Service Analysis focused solely on fixed route services. However, the FRCOG
Regional Transportation Plan will be able to complement this by examining and making planning
recommendations regarding the remainder of FRTA’s service – the demand response/paratransit
services.
The FRTA and FRCOG created a series of public forums called “Community Conversations” to gather
public input on the future of transit in the region. These Community Conversations were designed to be
informative, educational, and interactive for participants. Four Community Conversations were held
throughout the region at fully accessible locations on fixed bus routes to facilitate attendance. In
addition, they were held at times that coincided with the bus schedule to make it easier for transit riders
to attend and provide input. The dates and times of the locations were:
•
Monday, May 12 - Turners Falls, Great Falls Discovery Center, 4-6pm
•
Wednesday, May 14 – Greenfield, John W. Olver Transit Center, 12:30-2:30pm
•
Monday, May 19 – Shelburne Falls, Shelburne-Buckland Community Center, 3-5pm
•
Tuesday, May 20 – Orange, Orange Amory, 3-5pm
An additional Community Conversation was held in July at the Greenfield Farmer’s Market to further
expand the outreach efforts. Volunteers have also come forward to conduct on-board surveys of transit
riders to make sure that feedback from riders is fully captured.
The format of the Community Conversations was designed to be interactive with multiple ways in which
people could provide their thoughts on transit. At the beginning of each of the events, a PowerPoint
presentation was given that provided: 1) an overview of the FRTA and its services; 2) what the
Comprehensive Service Analysis was and why it mattered; 3) and interactive polling questions that
asked the participants about themselves and their current/potential use of transit.
After the short presentation, the participants had the opportunity to have an open conversation with
each other and FRTA/FRCOG staff about public transit. Following this conversation, participants were
asked to make their way around the room at their own pace and stop at the several stations set up in
which participants could give feedback on different topics. These topics included short term priorities,
long term desires, important destinations/routes, and what public transit means to them. In addition,
surveys and comment boxes were placed throughout the room for people to provide more specific
information. FRTA and FRCOG staff were also available for participants to speak with, ask questions,
and provide their input on the current and future state of transit in the region.
2|Page
To reach as many and diverse members of the public as possible, the FRTA and FRCOG prepared an
outreach strategy to let people know about the upcoming Community Conversations. This strategy
included radio ads on local radio stations advertising the time and locations of the forums. Press
releases were sent to all local newspapers. There were several prominent articles in the Greenfield
Recorder discussing the public forums. Targeted mailings were also sent to a large and diverse group of
regional stakeholders, including: social service groups, elected representatives, environmental groups,
housing authorities, senior centers, municipal officials, chambers of commerce, and more. Flyers were
posted on all buses, in the John W. Olver Transit Center, and in key locations throughout the region,
such as popular stores. In addition, information
about the events were posted on the FRTA and
FRCOG Facebook pages and widely “shared” and
“liked” by other organizations’ Facebook pages.
Finally, word-of-mouth was employed as FRTA
and FRCOG staff met with the various groups
from the region in their day-to-day business.
Almost 60 people attended the Community
Conversations. Through the electronic polling
questions conducted in the PowerPoint
presentation, the FRTA/FRCOG staff know that
most of the participants were working age (61%
Figure 1, Participants letting FRTA know what public transit
were aged 31-64 years old) and that almost half means to them.
(48%) of the participants have never used the
FRTA public transit system. The Appendix contains more detailed information about the age and
frequency of transit use of the participants.
Summary of Feedback
The feedback provided by participants at the Community Conversations was very constructive and
informative. Summarized below is the input received at each of the “stations” at the forums.
Overwhelmingly, participants support an expanded transit system that has greater frequency of
service, weekend service, and evening service.
What Public Transit Means to Me
At this station, forum participants were asked to write down on sticky notes what they felt public transit
means to them. The goal of this station was to understand the needs of people interested in transit.
For example, do many people use transit because they have no other transportation alternatives or do
they use it because they choose to do so for environmental reasons? The responses can be grouped
into the following 3 general categories:
3|Page
Public transit…..
1) Is necessary for survival/work (24%)
2) Helps the environment (37%)
3) Provides travel options (39%)
These results indicate that many people depend on FRTA’s fixed route system for their basic daily needs.
But some participants also have their own vehicle and are interested in transit for the additional options
that it provides them and the benefit to the environment it allows by reducing carbon emissions.
Short Term Priorities
At this station, participants were presented with a large
poster listing 10 actions that the FRTA could take with
little or no increase in funding in the short term (as
defined immediately or in the next several years).
Participants were asked to identify which of these
actions would be their top 4 priorities. The top
recommendation was that FRTA should add more direct,
short shuttle trips to specific destinations. This was
closely followed by providing more connections with
PVTA bus routes and offering various pass options. Table
Figure 2. Participants voting for short term priorities
1 below shows in detail the ranking of the priorities by for FRTA.
the participants at the Community Conversations.
Table 3. Ranking of Short Term Priorities for FRTA
Rank Short Term Priorities
Count Percent
2
Add more short, direct shuttle trips (to GCC, hospital, grocery stores,
attractions)
Offer day, monthly, & student pass options
3
Provide more connections with PVTA bus service
35
18%
4
Add bus shelter amenities (bike racks, lights, trash cans)
26
13%
5
Improve marketing of bus services
24
12%
6
Improve customer service and communication with bus riders
15
8%
7
Staff the ticket and information booth in the Transit Center lobby
6
3%
8
Improve the bus schedules to make them easier to read
6
3%
9
Add WiFi access on buses
4
2%
10
Re-design and enhance the FRTA website
4
2%
1
42
21%
35
18%
4|Page
Transportation Hot Spots
Another of the interactive stations at the Community Conversations was geared towards finding out
where people live and where they go. This would help inform the FRTA as to whether they are currently
serving popular destinations, and if not, where there could be additional opportunities to serve with the
goal of increasing ridership. Specifically, participants were asked to place little dot stickers on a large
map of the greater Franklin County region showing generally where they live and their most common
destinations. The attached Map in the Appendix depicts the locations of the most popular origins and
destinations for participants. Most participants live in/or originate in the towns of Greenfield, Shelburne
Falls, and Montague. The most popular destinations varied widely across Western Massachusetts and
even extended to Boston, New Hampshire (Keene), and Vermont (Brattleboro). The Table below shows
the top destinations.
Table 4. Top Destinations of Community Conversation Participants
Rank
Overall Top Destinations
Count
Percent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
Greenfield - downtown
Northampton
Amherst
Greenfield - west of I-91
Ashfield
Montague - Turners Falls
Holyoke
Brattleboro VT
Charlemont
Shelburne Falls
Athol
Orange - downtown
Hadley
Northfield
31
28
25
18
12
11
10
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
69%
62%
56%
40%
27%
24%
22%
20%
20%
20%
18%
18%
16%
16%
Long Term Ideal Transit System
An important station at the Community Conversations asked participants what they would like FRTA’s
fixed route system to look like if there were no constraints on funding or resources. Participants could
draw new routes and bus stops on maps provided or write ideas down on paper. In terms of service,
participants almost universally agreed that there should be more frequent service – particularly to align
with employee and school schedules; weekend service (Saturday service seemed to be more desired
than Sunday); and evening service. The most common additional routes that people wanted include the
following:
•
Greenfield to Amherst via South Deerfield
•
Greenfield/Turners Falls to Northfield via Bernardston/Gill
•
Northfield/Millers Falls to Amherst
5|Page
•
Millers Falls/Montague Center to Northampton
•
Greenfield to Boston/Fitchburg via Orange
•
Shelburne Falls to Amherst/Northampton via Route 116
•
Greenfield/North County to Brattleboro
General Comments
Participants at the Community Conversations were also encouraged to write down any comments they
may have and place them in envelopes throughout the room. Many constructive comments were
received (See the Appendix for full listing). The following image is a “wordcloud” that visually
summarizes the comments received. The larger words in the wordcloud indicate the most frequently
mentioned words. From this image, it is clear that participants at the Community Conversations want
more service – particularly additional hours and on the weekend. They also want more bus service to
serve Greenfield and Turners Falls residents and that the bus needs to get them to work and school.
Figure 3. Summary of comments received at the FRTA Community Conversations.
6|Page
Surveys
Surveys with specific transit and demographic questions were also available at the Community
Conversation forums for participants to fill out. A copy of the survey is included in the Appendix. In
addition to paper copies, electronic versions of the survey were also made available through the FRTA
and FRCOG websites and Facebook pages. Through both the paper and electronic versions, 94 people
responded to the survey 1. Key findings from the survey are:
•
A large number of respondents currently use transit for school (50%), work (41%), and shopping
(40%). A smaller percentage use it for social activities/leisure (36%) and medical appointments
(25%).*
•
Most current riders use transit because it is convenient (54%). But 43% use it for financial
reasons (it is cheaper than driving) and another 38% use it because they do not have access to a
car.
•
Many of the respondents said they would like more service to Amherst and Northampton.
•
The most common reasons people do not currently use transit is because: 1) the bus schedules
do not match their need (66%); 2) the bus service is not frequent enough (59%); and the bus
routes do not go to the places that they need to get to (36%).
•
1
The top 3 recommendations to improve transit in the region are:
o
More frequent bus service (70%)
o
Weekend bus service (50%)
o
Evening bus service (44%)
The percentages will not add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select multiple answers.
7|Page
August 22, 2014
Tina Cote, Administrator
12 Olive Street
Greenfield, MA 01301
Dear Ms. Cote,
Thank you for sending us the draft Chapters 1 and 2 of the FRTA’s Comprehensive Service
Analysis to review. We have read through the draft and offer the following comments to be
passed on to the consultant, URS.

Bottom photo on cover – This is a good picture, but it shows people with J Crew and
Banana Republic bags – stores that do not exist in this area and do not represent the
region very well.

Ch. 1 Page 1, last sentence – It would be wonderful to highlight and summarize the actual
public outreach that has been completed for the project. The FRTA has been proactive
about this component and has partnered with the FRCOG to help reach out to the public
in new ways. Specifically mentioning these efforts will help provide legitimacy from the
local population for the Comprehensive Service Analysis. Below is an example summary
that could be included in this section. We have also attached the Summary of the Public
Input that the FRCOG created that summarizes the different efforts and results of the
public outreach for more detailed information.
Suggested text: “At the beginning stages of the Comprehensive Service Analysis, the FRTA,
and its partner regional planning agency, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments, created
a series of public forums called “Community Conversations on Transit” to gather public input
and better understand the public’s transit needs and priorities. These Community Conversations
were designed to be informative, educational, and interactive for participants. Four Community
Conversations were held throughout the region at fully accessible locations on fixed bus routes to
facilitate attendance. In addition, they were held at times that coincided with the bus schedule to
1
make it easier for transit riders to attend and provide input. The dates and times of the locations
were:




Monday, May 12 - Turners Falls, Great Falls Discovery Center, 4-6pm
Wednesday, May 14 – Greenfield, John W. Olver Transit Center, 12:30-2:30pm
Monday, May 19 – Shelburne Falls, Shelburne-Buckland Community Center, 3-5pm
Tuesday, May 20 – Orange, Orange Amory, 3-5pm
An additional Community Conversation was held on Saturday, July 26th at the Greenfield
Farmer’s Market to further expand the outreach efforts for people that may not have been able to
attend the other events during the weekday. Volunteers also conducted on-board surveys of
transit riders to make sure that feedback from current riders is fully captured. The same surveys
were also available online and were advertised through the local newspapers, public television
stations, and social media with very good success.
The feedback gathered from these public outreach efforts has strongly shaped the goals and
objectives of this Regional Transit Plan. This feedback has also informed Tasks 4 and 5 with the
evaluation of various alternative service scenarios and developing recommendations to better
align service with local and regional demand.”

Ch. 2 Page 2 – FRTA Goals and Objectives – The goals and objectives listed here
directly echo the feedback received from the public outreach that was conducted. We
feel strongly that adding several sentences connecting the results of the public outreach to
these goals is very important in confirming to the public that their input was heard.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the first two draft chapters of the Regional
Transit Plan and are looking forward to seeing the additional chapters as they are completed. We
would be happy to answer any questions you have regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Megan Rhodes
Senior Transportation and Land Use Planner
2
Page intentionally left blank Appendix D
Public Hearing Comments
FRTA Public Comments
The FRTA invited the public to submit all comments about the draft Comprehensive Service Analysis
document entitled Regional Transit Plan through an open public comment period from July 6, 2015
through August 4, 2015. The following is a list of comments and attached letters of the feedback
received:
•
I live ½ mile north of Leyden Woods, to and from where I walk when occasionally using the
bus. At 88 years and fully mobile, I have just used the Demand Response option one time—
excellent service—however I really have no physical limitations to regularly need it. I
currently do volunteer service in the mornings at Federal Street School. Once a month our
car is away Friday-Sunday, curtailing my options for in town activities and programs. I
wonder whether the East and West Bound #21, could be routed on Leyden Road to Barton
Road, and down Country Club Road to Silver Street. It does seem like a long, time
consuming stretch, but might bring more riders, perhaps high school students. I read that
#21 might be expanded, and so perhaps there could be a better north area service.
•
Thank you for all you do to provide transportation in our community. I am writing to
request a bus stop at or near the Franklin Hampshire Career Center during the week.
Might the municipal parking area near the Grapevine work as a safe stop closer to the
Career Center, CSO, the Grapevine, the Salvation Army, and other social services? Can
there be a bus stop closer to One Arch Place? Your consideration about this matter is
deeply appreciated.
•
I am writing to bring attention and also ask for extra service. First: the bench on the corner
of 3rd St & Ave A in Turners Falls has been broken in half for well over a month. It now
only (sits) only 2 people instead of the usual 4. Second: if possible, could you add what is
called a “special event bus”? These buses would run between Turners Falls and Greenfield
for special events. Greenfield Fair, Turners Falls Music Fest, Turners Falls Octoberfest,
Turners Falls every third Thursday per month event, and other events as they come along.
If nothing else please fix the bench at 3rd (St) and Ave A.
•
Since I can’t attend a public meeting, I wanted to submit some comments for consideration.
I lived in Amherst and Sunderland for many years and used public transportation in that
area, which I recognize is extraordinary for small-town America. I used it daily to go to
work at UMass, and to go other places as well. Since moving to Greenfield when I
purchased a home, I have to drive to work. I’ve tried, and largely failed, at finding someone
to regularly commute with, even though I know many people make the same commute. I
believe strongly in public transportation that having to drive to work every day, alone, is
incredibly frustrating. The minimal service to Amherst doesn’t work for employment
purposes. I really wish Greenfield would consider working with the (FRTA) to create
affordable and usable routes for people making the commute between Greenfield and
Amherst (I fill out surveys whenever asked about public transportation by the (FRTA) as
well). It seems like the FRTA is focused on connecting the rest of Franklin County to
Greenfield, when I wish Greenfield would focus on connecting beyond Franklin County. To
accommodate adult workers, I think there would need to be 2-3 morning and late afternoon
trips to coordinate with standard business hours.
Page 1 of 4
•
Would like to see ticket sales in Montague: Food City in Turners Falls, Mini Mart in
Montague Center, and Carols Market in Millers Falls.
•
Orange bus reduced to one. What about connections to buses to Boston? Orange to
Gardner to Fitchburg Train to Boston. I take the earliest (Orange) bus and I arrive in
Boston about 9am.
•
I coordinate an afterschool program at Greenfield High School and utilize FRTA services to
transport students home Monday – Thursday. 70% of our students are from families living
below sustainable income levels. Having found the flier about the route changes when I
picked up bus tickets today, I have questions. Is the stop at Greenfield High School to be
eliminated? There is an ‘R’ on the chart? Our students now take the 5:02 bus from
Greenfield High School to be dropped at Big Y (living in hotels near by), the Corporate
Center, and Leyden Woods or Greenfield Gardens. When would the routes be changed? I
am grateful for the service we were just beginning to use, and I worry about how the loss
will affect our students’ access to our growing program.
•
Drop off point @ Chapman St near Arch St. Allows access to F/H Career Center, CSO,
Salvation Army, and Grapevine.
•
State should recognize disparity in FRTA’s funding and should be able to put funding on
level with other larger, urban regional transit authorities.
•
Feeder routes into smaller towns.
•
Need fixed route from New Salem to Greenfield Community College.
•
Current waste in the system could be repurposed (5:15pm Route 22 and Route 32 as an
example) to provide an express bus to Orange and by-pass Turners Falls and Millers Falls.
•
Skip GCC to get riders to the Corporate Center by 9:00am.
•
Route changes don’t fix GCC; 1 hour connection from Leyden Woods to GCC; people can
walk faster.
•
Hello, we provide you with propane at 382 Deerfield Street. Using pricing from state
contract ENE-35, your price for propane is now less than $1.00 per gallon. I was also just
reading chapter 6 of your regional transit plan. Propane Autogas could significantly reduce
your operating costs while also helping you meet your sustainability goals. We now have 15
passenger e-450 cutaways available. Some of your existing fleet could also be converted to
run on autogas. http://www.roushcleantech.com/content/ford-e-450-drw
•
I've read the Greenfield Recorder article on the FRTA's proposal to merge the #22Montague route into the #32-Orange route, and that no comments had yet been received
from the public. For my part, I'm opposed. I live in downtown Turners Falls, my wife and
I have no car, and we rely on the bus for all our transit needs. While the Recorder article
touted the promise of more trips to Orange, it would result in fewer trips to and from
Montague, a more heavily populated area than Orange, and not served by multiple RTA, as
Orange is with MART. This would be the case even were service to be extended to 7:30 PM
-- otherwise a welcome addition to those who might wish to travel to Greenfield during
Page 2 of 4
other than bankers' hours -- a net reduction of two trips a day. Such a discontinuation
might be warranted if the #22/Montague route had poor ridership. As your own proposal
states, "Discontinuation is the last option for dealing with a low-performing route and
should only be implemented once other measures have been tried but the route is still under
performing." Yet the route is, according to your own statistics, the BEST performing route
in the system, with the highest riders per hour -- over TWICE as many as on the #32. I'm
unsure what the payoff is in doubling service on a route few people take ... instead of, for
instance, increasing service on busier routes. Beyond that, I'm concerned that the Orange
bus is a fixed stop route, and drivers are very unwilling or refuse to make stops away from
the ones designated on the schedule. I'm hardly the only rider with mobility problems, and
I greatly appreciate that the #22 drivers will stop at the end of my street, which the Orange
drivers will not do. I am also concerned at your plan to truncate the Amherst route in
Sunderland to intercept a PVTA route. Does PVTA accept transfers from FRTA buses? If
not, then you are producing LESS service in return for a higher cost. As far as the other
service proposals, I've no objection; I still have no idea why the GCC/Corporate Center
routes had not been split off two years ago as proposed, instead of maintaining the
confusion of keeping them merged into the Greenfield Loop route. The #91 express route to
Northampton seems a fine idea ... except where, exactly, do you contemplate terminating the
route? Getting out at the Academy of Music in downtown Northampton is very convenient
to all (and that is indeed where most riders depart), while the Walmart stop over a mile
away would force commuters into time-consuming transfers and added expense connecting
to the PVTA. Thank you for your time and trouble in reading this.
•
Don’t combine the (Route) 22 and (Route) 32; instead add a Saturday run (between
Greenfield and Turners Falls).
•
In my opinion, the idea of expanding fixed route public transit opportunities to the four
towns mentioned, New Salem, Wendell, Shutesbury and Leverett, is a proper one at this
time of concern about over-use of the private (usually single-occupant) automobile. It
should increase ridership, overall, but it also surely begins addressing another important
objective: broadening the service toward more meaningfully serving the area as a whole.
FRTA service quite logically started around population centers and the areas's few highvolume businesses and institutions. The present service recommendations, as worded, don't
seem to depart much from this policy, focusing on increasing frequency of trips and days of
service on existing routes. I would strongly urge FRTA to expand this narrow objective. As
the Authority matures and as efficient, energy-saving transit becomes vital public policy,
the organization's role can become a truly farsighted, leadership one, and Franklin County,
as the state's most rural county, the ideal place to lead this shift. At this crucial point in the
trajectory of our civilization, the earlier "bus company" should break the chains of the old,
quantitative business model in order to fold in the best interests of the planet life system and
ways to align human activities with it. It should consciously work to serve the planet as well
as the county and surrounding area in all its rural, productive potential, human and
natural...this through aiming to give its most rural population a way to move about for
work and trade without the need for a private vehicle.
A committed focus of that kind would strengthen and secure the existing, more urban
routes, but, just as importantly, would help reduce current high levels of harmful, singleoccupant automobile use while stabilizing our smaller towns economically. These places are
now belated afterthoughts of our public policy.
Page 3 of 4
How to find the funds? Our area is the most communal, forested and agricultural part of
Massachusetts, three adjectives that form a key part of the state's heritage and a potentially
more stable and secure economic future. There's innate value in the rural and small-town
communal character, the homes and fields of Franklin County and the adjacent region:
agriculture, existing and potential; and deep knowledge and culture of an Earth-based kind
that slips away in urban confines. Lacking a more broadly focused vision, this region of
Massachusetts threatens to slide toward a collection of cities and commuter-centered
bedroom communities alongside areas of wild thickets and decaying homes. I would suggest
that, to a public service agency like FRTA, finding the funds to protect that character and
potential means departing from normal business in which maximum desirability is more or
less equated with the highest numbers. Such an approach isn't just "business," it's the
urban model of business, enforcing the tyrrany of the quantitative, and it favors
centralization, cultural homogenization, disregard of the planet's natural function and
produces all the short- and long-term problems thereof. To move toward a healthy culture
in a quantitatively oriented state, national and global economy, the transit authority must
make sure values well beyond ridership numbers and farebox receipts rule decisions like
expanding routes and setting fares, then communicate our region's fragile but real viability
to funding sources. Seek the help of municipalities, foundations and the Commonwealth in
joining it in protecting these assets. A well-informed citizenry will defend its heritage of
town and country patterns, ways and values - Earth-based, working-rural values - and
accept a level of taxation in order to do so. Otherwise, as resources tighten and people view
their choices about where to live, bus service will be one more force in the urban migration
of our still largely "small-town" state.
I encourage the FRTA to recogize and accept its role in this matter and to commit to
protecting the all-important character of the area it serves by expanding and strengthening
its fixed route coverage by creating coordinated feeder routes into the smaller towns, and
subsidizing the fares of these routes sufficiently to make the service attractive even to
current automobile owners.
Page 4 of 4
Prepared by:
URS Corporation AES
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 3B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067

Franklin Regional Transit Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

IndyGo Proposed and 2015 Route Changes

muttaburrasaurus - Clyde Peeling`s Reptiland

PATransit Port Authority of Allegheny County DR500C Talking Bus

c O n TA c T jiM SPEROS

available - RK Centers

join nordstrom rack

Assembly Point Sign

Froggy Drawing handout2 - Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority

Population Distribution in Southern MD and

Swallow Rocks to Big Mountain